Facts
- Two assailants robbed a coin-club treasurer in his garage, using a machine gun and a stun gun, and stole cash and jewelry.
- The victim recognized one robber’s voice as Terry Brice Horton, whom he knew from the coin club.
- A police sergeant sought a warrant to search Horton’s home, describing both the robbery proceeds and the weapons used.
- The magistrate issued a warrant authorizing only a search for the robbery proceeds, not the weapons.
- While executing the warrant and searching locations where the proceeds could reasonably be found, the officer observed in plain view an Uzi-type machine gun, a revolver, stun guns, and other incriminating items.
- The officer seized those items despite their omission from the warrant; the robbery proceeds were not recovered.
- Horton moved to suppress, arguing the seizure was invalid because the officer anticipated finding the weapons and was not “surprised” by their discovery.
- The trial court denied suppression and Horton was convicted; the state appellate court affirmed, and the state high court denied review.
Issues
- Whether the Fourth Amendment requires that evidence seized under the plain-view doctrine be discovered “inadvertently.”
- Whether officers executing a valid warrant may seize in plain view items not listed in the warrant when their incriminating character is immediately apparent.
Decision
- The Supreme Court affirmed (7–2).
- The Court held that inadvertent discovery is not a constitutional requirement for a valid plain-view seizure.
- The seizure was upheld because the officer was lawfully present under a valid warrant, searched only where the listed items could be found, and the weapons’ incriminating character was immediately apparent with lawful access to seize them.
Legal Principles
-
Plain view alone does not justify a warrantless seizure; the doctrine applies only when:
- the officer is lawfully in a position to view the item,
- the item’s incriminating character is immediately apparent, and
- the officer has a lawful right of access to the item.
-
The Fourth Amendment generally applies objective standards; an officer’s subjective expectations about what will be found do not add a constitutional condition to a seizure otherwise meeting plain-view requirements.
-
When officers act within the spatial limits authorized by a valid warrant (searching only where the described items might be), seizing other plainly incriminating items found there does not expand the search beyond what the warrant permits.
Conclusion
The Court held that the Fourth Amendment’s plain-view doctrine does not include an inadvertence requirement; evidence not named in a warrant may be seized if officers are lawfully present, the item’s criminal significance is immediately apparent, and officers have lawful access to take it.