NCJ Number
125066
Date Published
1990
Length
2 pages
Annotation
The dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court case, Horton v. California, is presented regarding the plain view doctrine in the discovery of inadvertent items by police.
Abstract
Although convinced that the plain view doctrine was correctly articulated in the decision, Justice Brennan writes that in eschewing the inadvertent discovery requirement, the majority ignored the Fourth Amendment's express command that warrants particularly describe not only the places to be searched, but also the things to be seized. The basic rule on unreasonable searches and seizures was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Horton v. California. However, the court reminded police that no amount of probable cause justifies a warrantless entry unless there are exigent circumstances.