Running head: HORTON V. CALIFORNIA 1
HORTON V. CALIFORNIA 8
Horton v. California
Joe Velasquez
National University
CJA 356 Criminal Evidence
Horton v. California
Importantly, the case of Horton v. California is a United States Supreme Court case, which occurred in 1990. The case aimed to make clarifications on important legal and constitutional matters in the United States. Particularly, the case focused on explaining how the Fourth Amendment supports the warrant-less seizure of evidence that the constitution categorizes as the plain view. Also, it revealed the decision and explanations of judges regarding the inadvertent requirements.
…show more content…
Lastly, the case explained the conditions that officers need to adhere to ensure the validity of their warrant-less seizures The Justification of the Seizure of the Weapons The seizure of the weapons was justified under the warrant.
Even though the United States has a constitution that supports the privacy of the locals and protect them from intrusion by government officials like law enforcers, some doctrines limit that privacy to certain levels. In particular, Citron (2007) states that country’s Fourth Amendment to the Constitution guides the behavior, actions, and decisions of police officers to ensure they operate legally and lawfully. Under this amendment, the clause of the probable cause states that police need to show or inform the judiciary that if they search premise, it is probable they will find stolen items or evidence to support their claims against suspected criminals. The fulfillment of this clause permits officers to conduct reasonable searches and seizures in various premises in the country. In Horton v. California case, the police officer believed that evidence of robbery existed in the Horton’s house. As a result, he requested for a warrant of both search and proceeds of robbery before he searched the house. The decision of the officers to apply a warrant for a search of weapons before the actual search proves that he adhered to the principle of probable cause. Therefore, his decision to seize the weapons of crime was justified under this …show more content…
clause. Equally important, the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution argues that police have the right to search and seize items beyond those that magistrates specify or list in their warrants in certain conditions. First, they have the right to seize items not listed in their warrant to ensure their safety within the premises or houses they search. Bizzack (2014) states that the United Supreme Court argued that police have the right to conduct warrant-less searches and seizures of weapons, which can threaten their lives and the safety of the public in Terry v. Ohio case of 1968. In the Horton vs. California case, Hall (1991) states that Sergeant LaRault seized deadly weapons, such as Uzi machine gun, 38 revolvers, and two short guns, which were not listed on the warrant list. These weapons were deadly, and thus, Horton had the option to use them to threaten the lives and security of the law enforcer and innocent Americans around him. Secondly, the amendment permits officers to seize items unlisted in their warrant if they are evidence of a crime. Bizzack (2014) defines evidence of a crime as items that criminals use to commit a crime or any other evidence, such as clothing or hair, of a crime. To be specific, these items include deadly weapons, burglar tools, and other items that thieves use to commit theft. In the case, the police seized the weapons as they were strong evidence against the perpetrator of the crime. Furthermore, Bizzack (2014) states that police may search and seize items unlisted in their warrant of search to prevent the destruction of strong evidence that supports the prosecution of criminals. In Horton vs. California case, the police recognized the weapons in the house as evidence of the robbery, which Horton committed against Erwin Wallaker. Therefore, the officer decided to seize the weapons to prevent Horton from destroying vital evidence that could help the government officials to jail him for robbery with violence. Based on the above explanations, the decision of the police to seize the weapons was justified and legally correct. Furthermore, the principle of plain view has numerous items that justify the seizure of the weapons under warrant. The doctrine insists that officers can use their sense of sight or smell to identify and seize evidence of a crime without warrant of search. In particular, Bizzack (2014) insists that the United States Supreme Court admitted and used evidence of a crime that officers seized after using the sense of sight in the Minnesota v. Dickerson case of 1993. In this regard, the decision of the officer to use the sense of sight to identify and seize weapons in Horton v. California case is justified and legal. The Supreme Court Decision Concerning the Inadvertent Requirement Importantly, the United States Supreme Court used the Horton v. California case to eliminate the requirement that the discovery of evidence in plain view need to be inadvertent. The court insisted that the inadvertence requirement was irrational and unreasonable based on various factors. First, Mack (1991) insisted that Coolidge explanation and ruling on inadvertent requirement was not binding. In the ruling, the minority members, four, of the United States Supreme Court endorsed the application of the inadvertent requirement in the doctrine of plain view. Therefore, the court overlooked the requirement and convicted Horton for robbery with violence based on evidence from seized items. Additionally, Newman (1992) argues that Justice Steven insisted that the doctrine of plain view was not adequate to justify an unauthorized search and seizure of evidence in different properties. In the Arizona v. Hicks case, the court stated that law enforcers were only free to search and seize objects in plain view since they lacked any expectation of privacy. According to Justice Steven, this statement implied that the doctrine stated that law enforcers needed authorized access to private properties and object to seize evidence. Consequently, the Supreme concluded that the existence or inexistence of the inadvertence requirement did not have an impact on the Fourth Amendment requirement that prohibited unconstitutional warrants and seizure of evidence of a crime, such as weapons and clothes with blood. Additionally, the court offered specific explanations to eliminate the inadvertence requirement. According to Newman (1992), the Supreme Court judges reasoned out that the inadvertence requirement did not affect lawful officers that confined their search within the scope indicated in their warrants. According to the Fourth Amendment, the country’s constitution provides that persons have a right to secure their properties and items against irrational searches and seizure by unauthorized law enforcers (Citron, 2007). In this regard, officers that breach the scope of search indicated in their warranty acts against the law. Therefore, their decision to seize items obtained in unwarranted areas is unconstitutional as per the Fourth Amendment, and thus, the analysis of such an act based on the inadvertent requirement is unnecessary. Equally important, the Supreme Court argued that the objectives of the standard of conduct of officers should overrule their subjective motive during evenhanded law enforcement. According to the Supreme court, the decision to apply the inadvertent requirement implied that the law focused on the subjective motive of officers, which limited the abilities of the judge to uphold the rule of law. In the Horton v. California case, the judges could have freed Horton, if the judges looked at the subjective motive of the officer. Therefore, the Supreme Court insisted that courts should not consider subjective motive to invalidate the seizure of vital elements. On the contrary, they should encourage officers to adhere to the doctrine of the plain view without unnecessary restrictions to address cases of crime conclusively. In this regard, Hall (1991) adds that the court insisted that police officers should not omit items they believe they can search and obtain quality evidence to support the criminal cases in courts of law. Thus, the adherence to this explanation can help officers to secure evidence. Conditions for Validity of Plain View Seizure Notably, the plain view doctrine is an essential law, which permits law enforcers, especially, police officers to seize evidence and contraband from criminals without warrants during searchers. Although the doctrine strives to promote law and order, law enforcers need to adhere to specific conditions to execute the doctrine lawfully. It is important to note that the doctrine insists that officers have the right to seize items of crime that when they are in areas where they have legal rights to be (Bizzack, 2014). Based on this explanation, law enforcers have to be in public places, such as bus stops or stadiums, when observing contrabands or crimes. Their presence in public property permits them to seize evidence from crime scenes or search criminals without implications. In the case of private property, Bizzack (2014) argues that officers need to obtain a search warrant from relevant authorities or obtain the consent of the property’s owner to conduct a legal search. In the case, the officers had the right to be in Horton’s house since they were executing a legal process. Even though officers have the right to search properties through the obtainment of search warrants, they should not search areas that are not prescribed in the search warrant. The ability of officers to adhere to the principles of the doctrine of plain view makes them lawful and responsible. Furthermore, Bizzack (2014) states that law enforcers should right to access the object they intend to search and seize from criminals. In this case, the right to access refers to the ability of police officers to view targeted items in plain view. For instance, officers should not move objects to view or seize items, which they classify as evidence of a crime. In the case that officers engage in other activities such as removing seals to obtain evidence, the constitution classifies their actions as illegal. In Horton v. California case, the officer spotted the weapons in plain view. Thus, his action to seize and use them as evidence in the Supreme Court was lawful and justified. Equally important, Bizzack (2014) argues that officers must identify the incriminating features of the objects they intend to seize immediately. Bizzack (2014) states that contrabands include, instruments of crime, gains from crime, and objects that prove the crime. In this regard, law enforcers should be able to classify the objects they intend to confiscate within the three categories. In Horton v. California case, the officer was able to identify the weapons as both instruments and evidence of a crime. Thus, his action to seize them from Horton was legal based on this principle of the doctrine of plain view. In summation, the Horton v.
California case was a landmark legal suit in the country as it allowed intelligent judges to deliberate on the doctrine of plain view. Importantly, the judges eliminate the inadvertent requirement to ensure the improved collection of evidence. In particular, the judges argued that courts should consider the objectives of the standard to enhance evenhanded law enforcement. This approach gave policemen the authority to use their sense of touch, sight, and anticipation to obtain evidence and use them to prove their cases against deadly criminals in the country. Also, the case emphasized the three conditions that officers need to fulfil to ensure validity of warrantless searches and seizures. Apparently, the analysis of the case is informative and relevant to officers and learners in different
faculties. References Bizzack, J. (2014). Search and seizure casebook. Department of Criminal Justice Training, 1-250. Retrieved from https://docjt.ky.gov/legal/documents/SearchSeizureCasebook2014forwebsite.pdf Citron, E. F. (2007). Right and Responsibility in Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence: The Problem with Pretext. The Yale Law Journal, 116(5), 1072. doi:10.2307/20455750 Hall, R. J. (1991). Fourth Amendment: Eliminating the inadvertent discovery requirement for seizures under the plain view doctrine. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 81(4), 819. doi:10.2307/1143728 Mack, J. (1991). Horton v. California: The plain view doctrine loses its inadvertency, 24 J. Marshall L. Rev. 891 (1991). The John Marshall Law Review, 24(4), 891-900. Newman, L. (1992). Horton v. California: Searching for a good cause. University of Miami Law School, 3(7), 455-498.
Overall this was a great case to read. Arizona v. Hicks held that the 4th Amendment requires the police to have probable cause to seize items in plain view. Again the major facts of this case were that the police had initial entry into Hick’s apartment. Even though it took place without a warrant.
Arizona V. Hicks discusses the legal requirements law enforcement needs to meet to justify the search and seizure of a person’s property under the plain view doctrine. The United States Supreme Court delivered their opinion of this case in 1987, the decision is found in the United States reports, beginning on page 321, of volume 480. This basis of this case involves Hicks being indicted for robbery, after police found stolen property in Hick’s home during a non-related search of the apartment. Hicks had accidentally discharged a firearm into the apartment below him, injuring the resident of that apartment. Police responded and searched Hicks apartment to determine the identity of the shooter, recover the weapon, and to locate other victims.
Justice Harlan’s reasonable expectations test in Katz vs. United States (1967) considers whether a person has an “actual (subjective) expectation of privacy” and if so, whether such expectation is one that “society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’” (Solove and Schwartz 99) If there is no expectation of privacy, there is no search and no seizure (reasonable, or not), and hence no Fourth Amendment issue. Likewise, we must first ascertain whether a search took place. A few questions from a police officer, a frisk, or the taking of blood samples do not constitute a search. (Solove and Schwartz 83; 86) Likewise, the plain view doctrine establishes that objects knowingly exhibited in a public area, in plain view for police to see, do not
On September 4, 1958, Dollree Mapp’s was convicted in the Cuyahoga County Ohio Court of Common Pleas (Mapp v. Ohio - 367 U.S. 643 (1961)). On March 29, 1961, Dollree Mapp v. Ohio was brought before the Supreme Court of the United States after an incident with local Ohio law enforcement and a search of Dollree Mapp 's home (Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643 (1961)). In the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment protects and prohibits all persons from unreasonable searches and seizures. However, can evidence obtained through a search that was in violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment rights still be admitted in a state criminal proceeding? This is the issue that will be thoroughly examined in the landmark case of Dollree Mapp v. the State of Ohio (henceforth
At the time of trial, Mr. Wardlow tried to suppress the handgun as evidence due to the fact that he believed the gun had been seized under an unlawful stop and frisk that violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right of the people against unreasonable searches and seizures by requiring a showing of probable cause in order to obtain a warrant before conducting such searches. “In a trial motion to suppress the gun, Wardlow claimed that in order to stop an individual, short of actually arresting the person, police first had to point to ‘specific reasonable inferences’ why the stop was necessary.”(Oyez, 2000) Recognizing that an investigati...
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrant, a legal paper authorizing a search, cannot be issued unless there is a reasonable cause. Courts have rules that a warrant is not required in every case. In emergencies such as hot pursuit, public safety, danger of loss of evidence, and permission of the suspect, police officers do not need a warrant to search a person’s property (Background Essay). In the case of DLK, federal agents believed DLK was growing marijuana in his home. Artificial heat intensive lights are used to grow the marijuana indoors (Doc B). Agents scanned DLK’s home with a thermal imager. Based on the scan and other information, a judge issued
The fourth amendment protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures. The police had evidence that DLK was growing marijuana in his house, so they used a thermal imager and found a significant amount of heat. The police took this evidence to a judge who gave them a warrant to search inside DLK’s house for the marijuana and when they did search his house the police found the plants and arrested DLK. The controversy surrounding this case is whether or not it was constitutional for the police to use the thermal imager of DLK’s house without a search warrant. The government did not need a warrant to use a thermal imager on the outside of DLK’s house because once the heat left DLK’s house it was out in public domain, the thermal imager could not see any details within DLK’s house, and the police already had evidence to expect DLK was growing the marijuana plants in his house.
There are records of many cases that has created controversies over reasonable or unreasonable searches and seizures. As stated in the fourth amendment,
The 4th amendment provides citizens protections from unreasonable searches and seizures from law enforcement. Search and seizure cases are governed by the 4th amendment and case law. The United States Supreme Court has crafted exceptions to the 4th amendment where law enforcement would ordinarily need to get a warrant to conduct a search. One of the exceptions to the warrant requirement falls under vehicle stops. Law enforcement can search a vehicle incident to an individual’s arrest if the individual unsecured by the police and is in reaching distance of the passenger compartment. Disjunctive to the first exception a warrantless search can be conducted if there is reasonable belief
In 1990, there was a total of 2,245 murders in New York, but over the past nine years, this total has been less than 600 (NYCLU). However, there has not been evident proof that the stop-and-frisk procedure is the reason of the declination of the crime rate. Indeed, stop-and-frisk contributes to some downturn of crime but the number is not high enough for the citizen and police to rely on. Specifically, only 3% of 2.4 million stops result in conviction. Some 2% of those arrests – or 0.1% of all stops – led to a conviction for a violent crime. Only 2% of arrests led to a conviction for possession of a weapon (Gabatt, A., 2013). In other words, the decrease in crime due to stop-and-frisk is mostly due to the discovery of possessed of weapons. Therefore, stop-and- frisk is not an effective procedure to use because it does not represent a huge impact in people’s safety (Gabatt, A., 2013). The author has done research about how police base their initiation towards the procedure of stop-and-frisk. Researchers have found that stop-and-frisk is a crime prevention strategy that gives a police officer the permission to stop a person based on “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity and frisk based on “reasonable suspicion” that the person is armed and dangerous. This controversy is mainly because of racial profiling. “Reasonable suspicion” was described by the court as “common sense” (Avdija, A., 2013). Although, the
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states that individuals have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and impacts, against absurd searches and seizures, yet the issue close by here is whether this additionally applies to the ventures of open fields and of articles in plain view and whether the fourth correction gives insurance over these also. With a specific end goal to reaffirm the courts' choice on this matter I will be relating their choices in the instances of Oliver v. United States (1984), and California v. Greenwood (1988) which bargain straightforwardly with the inquiry of whether an individual can have sensible desires of protection as accommodated in the fourth correction concerning questions in an open field or in plain view.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states that people have the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” but the issue at hand here is whether this also applies to the searches of open fields and of objects in plain view and whether the fourth amendment provides protection over these as well. In order to reaffirm the courts’ decision on this matter I will be relating their decisions in the cases of Oliver v. United States (1984), and California v. Greenwood (1988) which deal directly with the question of whether a person can have reasonable expectations of privacy as provided for in the fourth amendment with regards to objects in an open field or in plain view.
The Constitution of the United States of America protects people’s rights because it limits the power of government against its people. Those rights guaranteed in the Constitution are better known as the Bill of Rights. Within these rights, the Fourth Amendment protects “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizures […]” (Knetzger & Muraski, 2008). According to the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must be issued before a search and seizure takes place. However, consent for lawful search is one of the most common exceptions to the search warrant requirement.
A-58). It also requires “a warrant that specifically describes the place to be searched, the person involved, and suspicious things to be seized” (Goldfield et al. A- 58). The Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of the people by preventing public officials from searching homes or personal belonging without reason. It also determines whether “someone 's privacy is diminished by a governmental search or seizure” (Heritage). This amendment protects citizens from having evidence which was seized illegally “used against the one whose privacy was invaded” (Heritage). This gives police incentive to abide by the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects a person’s privacy “only when a person has a legitimate expectation to privacy” (FindLaw). This means the police cannot search person’s home, briefcase, or purse. The Fourth Amendment also requires there to be certain requirements before a warrant can be issued. The Fourth Amendment requires a warrant “when the police search a home or an office, unless the search must happen immediately, and there is no opportunity to obtain a warrant” (Heritage). The Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of the people, but also the safety of the people. When there is probable cause, a government official can destroy property or subdue a suspect. The Fourth Amendment prevents government officials from harassing the public.
In the 1980’s legal tension involving police searches was a direct result of the war on drugs campaign. Officers were encouraged to stop and seize or search suspicious vehicles to put a halt on drug trafficking (Harns, 1998). But placing this aggressive approach into effect had many negative outcomes. One problem was that it put police on a thin line with the constitutional laws. To no surprise, pretty much no data estimating how often police searches fall outside constitutional laws exist. Only cases that catch the courts attention are logged into the record books. A case study held in “Middleberg” on suspect searches reports that 70 of the 86 searches didn’t result in arrest; citations weren’t presented nor were any charges filed. Just about all of the unconstitutional searches, 31 out of 34, weren’t reported to the courts, nor were they intended to be reported.