Horton v. California
Significance, Background Laws And Decisions, The Crime And The Evidence, The Case Of Terry Horton
Terry Brice Horton
State of California
That the court must suppress the evidence Sergeant LaRault discovered in plain view while conducting a lawful search, because his search warrant did not mention these items and because LaRault did not find them inadvertently.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Martin S. Kaye
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens (writing for the Court), Byron R. White
William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall
Date of Decision
4 June 1990
Found that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit seizure of belongings not specifically listed in a warrant found in plain sight during a legal search for other items, even though the discovery was not inadvertent, as Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971) mandated.
- Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914).
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
- Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971).
- Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987).
- MacIntosh, Susanne M. "Fourth Amendment--The Plain Touch Exception to the Warrant Requirement." Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, winter-spring 1994, p. 743.
- "Review and Outlook: Common Sense, Uncommon Source." Wall Street Journal, June 5, 1990, p. A24.
- Hudson v. McMillian - Prison Inmate Claims Beating Violated His Civil Rights, High Court Defines Force Used On Inmates, Excessive Use Of Force Against Inmates Violates Societal Standards
- Hodgson v. Minnesota - Judicial Background, The Case At Hand, The Lower Courts Rule, The Supreme Court Affirms The Court Of Appeals Decision
- Horton v. California - Significance
- Horton v. California - Background Laws And Decisions
- Horton v. California - The Crime And The Evidence
- Horton v. California - The Case Of Terry Horton
- Other Free Encyclopedias