Horton v. California

Supreme Court of the United States · 1990 · Criminal Procedure

496 U.S. 128 (1990)

Updated July 27, 2026

Criminal ProcedureFourth AmendmentPlain View Doctrineplain viewwarrantless seizureinadvertenceimmediately apparentlawful access

Facts

A police officer investigating an armed robbery had probable cause to search petitioner's home for both the robbery proceeds and the weapons used in the crime, but the warrant that issued authorized only a search for the proceeds, including three specifically described rings. While lawfully searching petitioner's home under that warrant, the officer did not find the stolen property but did find weapons and other incriminating items in plain view, including an Uzi machine gun, a revolver, stun guns, a handcuff key, a coin club brochure, and clothing identified by the victim. The officer testified that while searching for the rings he was also interested in finding other evidence linking petitioner to the robbery, so the discovery of those items was not inadvertent. The seized items were introduced at trial over petitioner's suppression objection.

Issue

Does the Fourth Amendment prohibit a warrantless seizure of incriminating evidence in plain view when the police discover the evidence during a lawful search but its discovery was not inadvertent? More specifically, is inadvertence a necessary condition of a valid plain-view seizure?

Rule

A warrantless seizure under the plain-view doctrine is valid when the officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the place from which the object could be plainly viewed, the object's incriminating character is immediately apparent, and the officer has a lawful right of access to the object. Inadvertent discovery is not a necessary condition of a legitimate plain-view seizure.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Detectives in Phoenix obtain a valid warrant to search Lena Ortiz's apartment for a stolen diamond bracelet. The lead detective also strongly suspects that a distinctive taser used in a recent assault is inside and expects to find it. While opening closets and drawers large enough to hold the bracelet, the detective sees the taser lying openly on a bedroom shelf and immediately recognizes it from surveillance images.

Is the warrantless seizure of the taser most likely constitutional?

Explanation. The majority rule is that a plain-view seizure is valid if the officer lawfully arrived at the vantage point, the incriminating character of the item is immediately apparent, and the officer has lawful access to it. The officer's anticipation or subjective expectation of finding the item does not invalidate the seizure. Because the detective stayed within the permissible scope of the bracelet search and the taser was openly visible and obviously incriminating, the seizure is lawful.