Citation network
Horton Vs. California
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 04, 1990
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 128 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court Horton v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U.S. 128 (1990) Horton v. CaliforniaSearch
-
However, in rejecting Horton's argument that Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
of the Court. In this case, we revisit an issue that was considered, but not conclusively resolved, in Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
its discovery was not inadvertent. App. 52-53. The court relied on the California Supreme Court's decision in North v. SuperiorSearch
-
a seizure deprives the individual of dominion over his or her person or property. United States v. JacobsenSearch
-
is already in plain view, neither its observation nor its seizure would involve any invasion of privacy. Arizona v. HicksSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
S. 771 (1983). A seizure of the article, however, would obviously invade the owner's possessory interest. Maryland v. MaconSearch
-
seizures were set forth in Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
and in the course of the search come across some other article of incriminating character. Cf. Go-Bart Importing Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Steele v. UnitedSearch
-
legitimate. Thus the police may inadvertently come across evidence while in 'hot pursuit' of a fleeing suspect. Warden v. HaydenSearch
-
Hester v. UnitedSearch
-
incident to arrest that is appropriately limited in scope under existing law may be seized without a warrant. Chimel v. CaliforniaSearch
-
searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. Harris v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. at 374 U. S. 43 . Cf. Lewis v. UnitedSearch
-
Texas v. BrownSearch
-
Arizona v. PageSearch
-
Maryland v. GarrisonSearch
-
be circumscribed Page 496 U. S. 140 by the exigencies which justify its initiation. See, e.g., Maryland v. BuieSearch
-
Arizona v. HicksSearch
-
North v. SuperiorSearch
-
Wolfenbarger v. WilliamsSearch
-
United States v. AntillSearch
-
Terry v. StateSearch
-
State v. JohnsonSearch
-
Commonwealth v. CefaloSearch
-
State v. SandersSearch
-
State v. GallowaySearch
-
Clark v. StateSearch
-
State v. EisemanSearch
-
State v. McColganSearch
-
Tucker v. StateSearch
-
State v. DingleSearch
-
U. S. 149 -153. At least two other state courts have agreed with the California Supreme Court. See State v. PontierSearch
-
State v. RomeroSearch
-
We reaffirm the basic rule of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence stated by Justice Stewart for a unanimous Court in Mincey v. ArizonaSearch
-
Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Horton v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
Arizona v. HicksSearch
-
Maryland v. MaconSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial