Court Opinion

ID: 9492055
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:31:02.696648+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:55:05.077257
License: Public Domain

ORDER ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
April 30, 1999.
This matter is before the court on the government’s petition for rehearing by the panel. Because the government contends we failed to properly follow Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 130 (1990), we recognize inadvertance is not a Fourth Amendment requirement. We note, however, “inadvertance is a characteristic of most legitimate ‘plain-view’ seizures.” Id. As such, the fact that Detective Lewis did not inadvertently come across the pornographic files is certainly relevant to our inquiry. Our holding is based, however, on the fact that Detective Lewis impermissibly expanded the scope of his search when he abandoned the search for drug-related evi*1278dence to search for evidence of child pornography. The petition for rehearing is denied.