Horton v California
Criminal Justice 1
Case Review
October 16, 2013
Terry Brice Horton v. California
Argued February 21, 1990
496 U.S. 128, 110 S. Ct. 2301, 110 L. Ed. 2d 112 (1990)
The defendant’s armed robbery conviction was upheld by the California Supreme Court, the defendant then petitioned the writ of certiorari, which is a decision by the Supreme Court to hear an appeal from a lower court. Justice Stevens then held that “Fourth Amendment does not prohibit warrantless seizure of evidence of crime in plain view.” That also goes if the finding of the evidence was not unintentional.
In California a police officer decided to search petitioner Horton’s home because he felt there was probable cause, the officer was searching for the stolen goods and the weapons used during the crime. The warrant given to the officer only authorized him to search for the stolen goods. As he made his way into the home of petitioner Horton he did not recover the stolen items, but found the weapons used during the crime and recovered them. When it got to the court the recovered weapons were allowed to be used against Horton, and Horton was later convicted of the crime. Since the officer testified that he did have intentions of looking for other evidence while looking for the stolen goods, the California court of appealed the conviction and then granted certiorari.
The issue being brought up is if the evidence recovered was able to be used against Horton during the case. Justice Stevens discusses to the court and explains “Whether the warrantless seizure of evidence of crime in plain view is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment if the discovery of the evidence was not inadvertent.” The main issue in this case and other similar cases is the “plain-view” aspect of them. If the warrant does not describe or authorize you to recover weapons or other evidence are you allowed to recover them if you come upon them? Then if recovered is it allowed to be used in court as evidence against the
Case Review
October 16, 2013
Terry Brice Horton v. California
Argued February 21, 1990
496 U.S. 128, 110 S. Ct. 2301, 110 L. Ed. 2d 112 (1990)
The defendant’s armed robbery conviction was upheld by the California Supreme Court, the defendant then petitioned the writ of certiorari, which is a decision by the Supreme Court to hear an appeal from a lower court. Justice Stevens then held that “Fourth Amendment does not prohibit warrantless seizure of evidence of crime in plain view.” That also goes if the finding of the evidence was not unintentional.
In California a police officer decided to search petitioner Horton’s home because he felt there was probable cause, the officer was searching for the stolen goods and the weapons used during the crime. The warrant given to the officer only authorized him to search for the stolen goods. As he made his way into the home of petitioner Horton he did not recover the stolen items, but found the weapons used during the crime and recovered them. When it got to the court the recovered weapons were allowed to be used against Horton, and Horton was later convicted of the crime. Since the officer testified that he did have intentions of looking for other evidence while looking for the stolen goods, the California court of appealed the conviction and then granted certiorari.
The issue being brought up is if the evidence recovered was able to be used against Horton during the case. Justice Stevens discusses to the court and explains “Whether the warrantless seizure of evidence of crime in plain view is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment if the discovery of the evidence was not inadvertent.” The main issue in this case and other similar cases is the “plain-view” aspect of them. If the warrant does not describe or authorize you to recover weapons or other evidence are you allowed to recover them if you come upon them? Then if recovered is it allowed to be used in court as evidence against the