Document: 496 U.S. 128 110 S.Ct. 2301 L.Ed.2d 112 Terry Brice HORTON, Petitionerv.CALIFORNIA. No. 88-7164. Argued Feb. 21, 1990. Decided June 4, Syllabus A California policeman determined that there was probable cause to search petitioner Horton's home for the proceeds of a robbery and robbers' weapons. His warrant affidavit referred police reports described both weapons proceeds, but issued by Magistrate only authorized proceeds. Upon executing warrant, officer did not find stolen property in plain view seized them. The trial court refused suppress evidence, Horton convicted armed robbery. Court Appeal affirmed. Since had testified while he searching also interested finding other evidence connecting robbery, discovered "inadvertently." However, rejecting argument Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 443, 91 2022, 29 564, therefore required suppression relied on State Supreme decision holding Coolidge's discussion inadvertence limitation "plain-view" doctrine binding because it contained four-Justice plurality opinion. Held: Fourth Amendment does prohibit warrantless seizure even though discovery inadvertent. Although is characteristic most legitimate plain-view seizures, necessary condition. Pp. 133-142. (a) precedent. second plurality's two limitations doctrine—that must be inadvertent, id., at 469, S.Ct., 2040—was essential Court's rejection State's case. Rather, first limitation—that alone never enough justify seizure, 468, 2039—adequately supports gunpowder found vacuum sweepings from one automobiles defendant's driveway course his arrest could introduced against him seizures violated Amendment. In order an object valid, conditions satisfied addition predicate violate arriving place which plainly viewed. First, object's incriminating character "immediately apparent," 466, 2038. cars were obviously view, their probative value remained uncertain until after interiors swept examined microscopically. Second, have lawful right access itself. Justice Harlan, who concurred judgment join discussion, may well rested vote fact cars' accomplished means trespass property. Pp.133-137 (b) There are flaws conclusion requirement avoid violation Amendment's mandate valid " 'particularly describ[e] . [the] things seized,' 469-471, 2040. evenhanded law enforcement best achieved applying objective standards conduct, rather than depend upon officer's subjective state mind. item fully expects should invalidate its if confined area duration warrant's terms or exception requirement. suggestion prevent conducting general searches, converting specific warrants into warrants, persuasive interest already served requirements unparticularized circumscribed exigencies initiation. Here, search's scope enlarged omission reference weapons; indeed, no taken named items been surrendered outset. prohibition searches based privacy concerns, implicated when with seizes without warrant. 137-142. Affirmed. STEVENS, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE, BLACKMUN, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, filed dissenting opinion, MARSHALL, joined, post, p. 142. Juliana Drous, San Francisco, Cal., petitioner. Martin S. Kaye, respondent. STEVENS Court. 1 this case we revisit issue considered, conclusively resolved, 564 (1971): Whether crime prohibited We conclude 2 * Petitioner Erwin Wallaker, treasurer Jose Coin Club. When Wallaker returned Club's annual show, entered garage accosted masked men, machine gun electrical shocking device, sometimes as "stun gun." men shocked bound handcuffed him, robbed jewelry cash. During encounter sufficient conversation took enable subsequently identify petitioner's distinctive voice. identification partially corroborated witness saw robbers leaving scene attended coin show. 3 Sergeant LaRault, experienced officer, investigated used robbers. including three specifically rings. 4 Pursuant LaRault searched residence, search, however, Specifically, Uzi gun, .38-caliber revolver, stun guns, handcuff key, Club advertising brochure, few clothing identified victim.1 rings, Thus, 5 and, jury trial, guilty sentenced prison. App. 43. It rejected our listed 52-53. North Superior 8 Cal.3d 301, 104 Cal.Rptr. 833, 502 P.2d 1305 (1972). noted Stewart's joined Members it.2 denied request review. 78. 6 Because courts' interpretation conflicts courts,3 unresolved important, granted certiorari, 493 889, 231, 107 183 (1989). II provides: 7 "The people secure persons, houses, papers, effects, unreasonable shall violated, Warrants issue, cause, supported Oath affirmation, particularly describing searched, persons seized." security person protected invaded quite different ways seizures. compromises individual privacy; deprives dominion over her United States Jacobsen, 466 109, 113, 1652, 1656, 80 85 (1984). often considered rule presumptively unreasonable,4 characterization overlooks important difference between seizures.5 If article neither observation nor would involve any invasion privacy. Arizona Hicks, 480 321, 325, 1149, 1152, 94 347 (1987); Illinois Andreas, 463 765, 771, 103 3319, 3324, 77 1003 (1983). article, invade owner's possessory interest. Maryland Macon, 472 463, 105 2778, 2782, 86 370 (1985); U.S., 1652. "plain view" justifies otherwise applicable requirement, therefore, addressed concerns searches. 9 criteria generally guide set forth (1971). held police, seizing parked arresting defendant, Accordingly, particles defendant. endeavored automobiles, subsequent station, four grounds, doctrine.6 developed earlier cases fairly summarized these paragraphs opinion: 10 "It established under certain circumstances seize But keep mind that, vast majority cases, will least moment seizure. problem 'plain view' has legal significance being simply normal concomitant illegal. 11 "An example applicability situation given specified objects, come across some character. Cf. Go-Bart Importing Co. States, 282 344, 358 [51 153, 158, 75 L.Ed. 374 (1931) ]; Lefkowitz, 285 452, 465 [52 420, 423, 76 877 (1932) Steele 267 498 [45 414, 69 757 (1925) Stanley Georgia, 394 557, 571 [89 1243, 1251, 22 542 (1969) ] (STEWART, concurring result). Where initial intrusion brings within such supported, recognized exceptions legitimate. Thus inadvertently 'hot pursuit' fleeing suspect. Warden Hayden [387 294, 87 1642, 18 782 (1967) cf. Hester 265 57 [44 445, 68 898 (1924) ]. And comes during incident appropriately limited existing Chimel California, 395 [752,] 762-763 2034, 2039-2040 Finally, applied where accused, nonetheless object. Harris 390 234 [88 992, 19 1067 (1968) Frazier Cupp, 731 1420, 684 Ker [23,] 43 [83 1623, 1635, 726 (1963) Lewis 385 206 [87 424, 17 312 (1966) 12 "What common each them prior justification came piece accused. serves supplement justification—whether another object, hot pursuit, arrest, reason present unconnected directed accused—and permits Of course, extension original immediately apparent they before them; extend exploratory something last emerges." Id., 465-466, 2037-2038 (footnote omitted). 13 Stewart then implicit rationale: evidence," 2039; second, "the inadvertent." 14 analysis command majority, since made clear "not precedent." Texas Brown, 460 730, 737, 1535, 1541, (1983) (opinion J.). response opinions, 473-484, 490-493, 2042-2047, 2050-2051, doctrine. See 464-473, 2037-2042. Before discussing limitation, case, explain why adequately judgment. 15 is, are, moreover, additional view; apparent." 2038; see 326-327, 1153. Coolidge, lawfully located can seen, she itself.7 As suggested, Harlan's property.8 all events, absence Coolidge. III 16 concluded express constitutional describe seized. He explained: rationale just stated, turn initially (and limited) 'general' one, inconvenience procuring cover inadvertent great. anticipated, know advance location intend it, altogether different. imposes whatever, none constitutionally cognizable system regards 'per se unreasonable' 'exigent circumstances.' "If bottomed fails mention particular 'Warrants seized.' 2040-2041. reasoning. application officer. knowledge approaching certainty found, deliberately omit description warrant.9 Specification permit theoffi cer expand search. On hand, merely suspicion concerning whether amounts fail immunize first. hypothetical put WHITE instructive: 20 "Let us suppose officers house rifle. While staying range rifle discover photographs murder victim, sight bedroom. Assume photograph anticipated. photographs. 'minor' peril values surely photographs: interference possession same officers' appraisal expected less reliable about other. situations actual danger remain identical depart warrant." 516, 2063. 21 unless "particularly describ[es] seized," Garrison, 79, 84, 1013, 1016, 72 1, 498, 503, 45 416, (1925),10 See, e.g., Buie, 494 332-334, 1093, 1098-1099, 108 276 (1990); Mincey Arizona, 437 385, 393, 98 2408, 2413, 290 (1978). Scrupulous adherence interests limiting inadequately protects. Once those commands access, furthered requiring exceeds permitted validly relevant unconstitutional more. "[i]f stray outside Amendment, so excluded; adding excluding hardly seems worth candle." 517, 2063 (WHITE, dissenting). Similarly, automobile defines scope: thus defined nature container contraband secreted. places believe found. Just lawnmower support upstairs bedroom, undocumented aliens transported van suitcase. Probable placed trunk taxi contains entire cab." Ross, 456 798, 824, 102 2157, 2172, 572 (1982). 23 slightest Indeed, rings outset—or responded producing immediately—no place. Again, WHITE's 24 "Police rifles might terminate once found; way reduce number look." 25 hypothesis privacy.11 invaded, occurred need condemn it. primarily protection unjustified intrusions reliance misplaced inquiry authorizes 26 discovered, constituted evidence. obtain property, handguns investigating. warrant; 27 ordered. 28 whom MARSHALL joins, dissenting. I convinced correctly articulated do (1) position observe items, (2) "inadvertent," (3) crime, contraband, subject eschewing ignores respectfully dissent rewriting 30 states: 31 32 protects distinct interests. searched" protect seized" property.1 ante, 133; 747, 1546, (STEVENS, judgment). terms, declares equally important. recently stated: "Although injunction inferior necessarily requires lesser protection." 328, 1154, (1987) (citation 33 precisely manner: neutral detached magistrate evaluate, government's showing per absent exigent circumstances, too personal "per meaning pursuant judicial Place, 462 696, 701, 2637, 2641, omitted) (citing Marron 275 192, 196, 48 74, 76, 231 (1927)). "Prior review time-tested effectuating rights." District Eastern Michigan, 407 297, 318, 92 2125, 2137, 752 left discretion zealous "engaged competitive enterprise ferreting out crime." Johnson 333 10, 14, 367, 369, 436 (1948). makes impossible prevents thing another. what taken, nothing Marron, supra, 76. 34 explained 470, 2040, accept sees warrant" newly "where it," "inconvenient" loses much, all, force. Ibid. Barring exigency, obtained entering premises. behind excuse yet bother To "fly face basic amount seizure." 471, 35 become widely accepted. 746, 1546 (Powell, judgment) ("Whatever my decided, late date imply criticism articulation exception. accepted decade"). Forty-six Columbia2 Courts Appeals3 now require outcry officials unduly burdens efforts. Given inescapably rooted language cannot fathom enthusiasm discarding element 36 posits "flaws" reasoning believes demonstrate inappropriateness illusory. explains "has certainty" "would Ante, 138. whose matters decided warrant—for whatever reason—and anyway, conduct unreasonable. Suppression encourage more precise complete future applications. 37 Furthermore, instances choose them, knows premises, intends view. For example, process time consuming, especially attempt large items. An soon possible decide save listing hard-to-find confident looking discovers almost anywhere inside house, unlikely restrict rationally risk discovering warrant—thereby forcing immediately—outweighed saved process. 38 contends "no 140. Put way, 'the [law officers] look.' 141 (quoting dissenting)). correct, asked wrong question. true furthers reduces look. ("The grounded proposition first-hand, lost; owner retain incidents title privacy") (emphasis added). take seriously 143. today eliminates designed further ground countenance legerdemain. 39 Fortunately, impact, confronted lower courts "pretextual" Lair, 95 Wash.2d 706, 717-718, 630 427, 434 (1981) (en banc) (holding pretextual invalid). enters really relating fruits suppressed. Kelsey, 592 S.W.2d 509 (Mo.App.1979) (evidence suppressed officers, ample opportunity investigation, premises instead drug hiding weapon, "top bottom" drugs). use "hot pursuit," pretext enter Such deliberate circumvent condoned. 40 "inadvertent" reason. prohibits Bussard, 114 Idaho 781, 788, n. 2, 760 1197, 1204, (1988); Kelly, 718 389, (Utah 1986). address doubt Amendment.4 41 demands individual's governmental authorize advance. explicit manner interests, eliminate caused difficulties officers. am confident, egregious 130-131, Constitution parsimonious today. dissent. APPENDIX STATES THAT HAVE ADOPTED THE INADVERTENT DISCOVERY REQUIREMENT 42 Ala. Taylor State, 399 So.2d 881, 892 (Ala.1981) Alaska Deal 626 1073, 1079 (Alaska 1980) 44 Ariz. Ault, 150 459, 464, 724 545, 550 (1986) Ark. 291 260, 263, 160, 162 46 Colo. People Cummings, 706 766, 771 (Colo.1985) 47 Conn. Hamilton, 214 692, 573 A.2d 1201 (1990) D.C. Gant 518 103, (DC App.1986) 49 Fla. Hurt 388 281, 282-283 (Fla.App.1980), denied, 1146 (Fla.1981) Ga. Mooney 243 373, 383-384, 254 S.E.2d 337, 346, cert. 444 886, 100 179, 62 116 (1979) 50 Haw. Barnett, 32, 35, 703 680, 683 (1985) 51 Ill. Madison, 121 Ill.2d 195, 208, 117 Ill.Dec. 213, 520 N.E.2d 374, 380-381, 488 907, 109 257, 246 (1988) 52 Ind. Clark 918, 921 (Ind.1986) 53 Iowa Emerson, 375 N.W.2d 256, 259 (Iowa 1985) 54 Kan. Doile, 244 493, 497, 769 666, 669 (1989) 55 Ky. Patrick Commonwealth, 535 88, 89 (Ky.1976) 56 La. Stott, 714, 716 (La.1981) Me. Cloutier, 544 1277, 1281, (Me.1988) 58 Md. Wiggins 315 232, 251-252, 554 356, 365 59 Mass. Commonwealth Cefalo, 381 319, 330-331, 409 719, 727 (1980) 60 Mich. Dugan, Mich.App. 503-505, 302 209, 211-212 (1980), 455 927, 1292, 71 471 (1982) 61 Minn. Buschkopf, 373 756, 768 (Minn.1985) Miss. Smith 419 563, (Miss.1982), 1047, 1449, 803 63 Mo. Clark, 709, 713 (Mo.1979), 449 847, 101 132, 66 Mont. Hembd, 235 361, 368-369, 767 864, 869 64 Neb. Hansen, 221 108-109, 605, 609 65 Nev. 97 621, 624, 637 1209, 1211 N.H. Cote, 126 514, 525, 526, 1170, 1177-1178 67 N.J. Bruzzese, 210, 237-238, 320, 334-335 (1983), 1030, 1295, 79 695 (1984) N.M. Luna, 93 773, 779, 606 183, 188 N.Y. Jackson, N.Y.2d 146, 150-151, 391 N.Y.S.2d 82, 359 677, 681 (1976) 70 N.C. White, 322 770, 390, 392, 958, 399, 387 N.D. Riedinger, 866, 874 (N.D.1985) Ohio Benner, St.3d 308, 533 709-710 (1988), 1090, 1834, 962 73 Okla. Farmer 759 1031, 1033 (Okla.Crim.App.1988) 74 Ore. Handran, Ore.App. 546, 550-551, 777 981, 983, 308 405, 781 855 Pa. Davidson, 389 Pa.Super. 166, 175, 566 897, 901 R.I. Robalewski, 418 817, 824 (R.I.1980) S.C. Culbreath, 300 237, 255, 257 S.D. Albright, 292, 295 (S.D.1988) 78 Tenn. Byerley, 635 511, 513 (Tenn.1982) Tex. Stoker 788 (Tex.Crim.App.1989) Vt. Dorn, 145 606, 620-621, 451, 459-460 81 Va. Holloman 947, 949, 620, 621-622 82 Wash. Bell, 193, 737 254, 83 W.Va. Moore, 165 837, 852-853, 272 804, 813-814 84 Wis. Washington, 134 Wis.2d 108, 119-121, 396 156, 161 Wyo. Jessee 640 56, (Wyo.1982) B UNITED COURTS OF APPEALS CA1: Caggiano, 899 F.2d 99, CA2: Barrios-Moriera, 872 12, 16, 953, 364, 350 CA3: Meyer, 827 943, 945 88 CA4: Tarantino Baker, 825 772, 777, CA5: Crowder Sinyard, 884 826, (1989), pending, 89-1326 90 CA6: Poulos, 895 1113, 1121 CA7: Perry, 815 1100, 1105 CA8: Peterson, 867 1110, 1113 CA9: Holzman, 871 1496, 1512 CA10: Wolfenbarger Williams, 826 930, 935 CA11: Bent-Santana, 774 1545, 1551 96 CADC: re Search Warrant Dated July 1977, Premises 2125 § Street, Northwest, D.C., 215 U.S.App.D.C. 102, 667 117, (1981), 926, 1971, 441 viewed rifles, associated criminal activity. 30; 327, 1153, (1987). "In arrested suspect thereupon later physical victim vehicle. record disclosed known role car circumstances' justified theory vehicle itself 'instrumentality' 'in entitled effect precedent, difficulty distinguishing instant 'inadvertent' portion proposed adoption new restrictions signed members (Stewart, Douglas, Brennan, Marshall, judgment, Harlan declined remaining justices expressly disagreed point." Cal.3d, 307-308, Cal.Rptr., 836, P.2d, 1308 (1972) (citations 930 (CA10 1987); $10,000 Currency, 780 213 (CA2 1986); Roberts, 644 (CA8), 821, (1980); Antill, 615 648 (CA5 1980); 271 715, 610 (App.1981); Johnson, Wash.App. 561 701 (1977); 719 Sanders, 431 1034 (Fla.App.1983); Galloway, 232 87, 652 673 (1982); 918 (Ind.1986); Eiseman, 461 380 (R.I.1983); McColgan, 631 151 (Tenn.Crim.App.1981); Tucker 620 1314 (Okla.Crim.App.1980); Dingle, 279 278, 306 223 cited Appendices BRENNAN's 2314-2316. At agreed Pontier, 707, 712, 969, 974 (1974); Romero, 660 715 1983). "We reaffirm jurisprudence stated unanimous 2412, [ (1978) ]: 'The proscribes cardinal principle "searches conducted process, approval judge magistrate, Amendment—subject well-delineated exceptions." Katz 347, 357 507, 576 (footnotes omitted).' 824-825, 2173, distinguish view,' mere Whereas latter involves infra, 740 [103 1542]; 576] (1967), former implicate property." 738, contended attorney general, invalid "a magistrate." 449-453, 2029-2031. addition, requirement: arrest; exception; 453-473, 2031-2042. "This corollary familiar discussed above, Incontrovertible testimony senses belonging establish fullest measure cause. repeatedly enforced make 286 951 [68 (1948) McDonald 335 451 [69 191, 153 (1948)]; Jones 497-498 [78 1253, 1256, 1514 (1958) Chapman [81 776, 828 (1961) Trupiano 334 699 1229, 1663 ]." 2039. home. Minnesota Olson, 495 91, 1684, Payton York, 445 573, 1371, 639 (1980). Brief Amicus Curiae 7, 4. proceed seek motive omitting photograph. Quite contrary true. Only oversight careless mistake photograph." Clause categorically issuance except manifest purpose particularity By authorization areas ensures carefully tailored justifications, wide-ranging Framers intended prohibit." 1016. Even container, compromise preserving contents opened either Ohio, 541, 1288, 464 (1983); Arkansas 442 753, 99 2586, (1979); Chadwick, 433 2476, 538 Van Leeuwen, 397 249, 1029, (1970); Ex parte 727, 733, (1878), Colorado Bertine, 479 739 recognizes, preventing 139-141. alien 140-141 (1982)). cease permitted. 141. Appendix A, 149-152. Idaho, Utah—have Bittaker, 1046, 1076, 630, 644, 659, 673-674 89-6223; status Delaware unclear. Wicks 552 462, (Del.Super.1988). B, 152-153. dispute unconstitutionality goes "so far astray mentioned [becomes] wrongdoing found." Tranquillo, 330 F.Supp. 871, 876 (MD Fla.1971). reiterates "converting warrants" emphasizes scrupulous "be initiation." 139-140.

Category: 0