Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless seizure of evidence which is in plain view. The discovery of the evidence does not have to be inadvertent, although that is a characteristic of most legitimate plain-view seizures.
In Horton v. California , [ 7 ] the court eliminated the requirement that the discovery of evidence in plain view be inadvertent, which had caused ambiguity. [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] The case involved the plain view seizure of weapons related to a robbery, even though the warrant was signed by a judge who had specifically denied permission to seize ...
Relevant exceptions to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement include "1) when consent to search has been given (Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 1973), (2) when the information has been disclosed to a third party (United States v. Miller, 1976), and (3) when the information is in plain view of an officer (Horton v. California, 1990)". [22]
Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal. 4th 364, 93 Cal. Rptr. 3d 591, 207 P.3d 48 (2009), was a decision of the Supreme Court of California, the state's highest court.It resulted from lawsuits that challenged the voters' adoption of Proposition 8 on November 4, 2008, which amended the Constitution of California to outlaw same-sex marriage.
Case name Citation Date decided Keller v. State Bar of Cal. 496 U.S. 1: 1990: McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Fla. Dept. of Business Regulation
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
[4] [5] [6] As an amendment, it was ruled constitutional by the California Supreme Court in Strauss v. Horton in 2009, on the grounds that it "carved out a limited [or 'narrow'] exception to the state equal protection clause"; in his dissent, Justice Carlos R. Moreno wrote that exceptions to the equal protection clause could not be made by any ...
Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the Fourth Amendment and the automobile exception.. The state sought to justify the search of a car owned by Edward Coolidge, suspected of killing 14-year-old Pamela Mason in January 1964, on three theories: automobile exception, search incident to arrest and plain view.