496 U.S. 128 (1990)
Petitioner Terry Brice Horton was convicted of the armed robbery of Erwin Wallaker, the treasurer of the San Jose Coin Club.1 When Wallaker returned to his home after the Club's annual show, he entered his garage and was accosted by two masked men, one armed with a machine gun and the other with an electrical shocking device.2 The two men shocked Wallaker, bound and handcuffed him, and robbed him of jewelry and cash.3 During the encounter sufficient conversation took place to enable Wallaker subsequently to identify petitioner's distinctive voice.4
Sergeant LaRault, an experienced police officer, investigated the crime and determined that there was probable cause to search petitioner's home for the proceeds of the robbery and for the weapons used by the robbers.5 His affidavit for a search warrant referred to police reports that described the weapons as well as the proceeds, but the warrant issued by the Magistrate only authorized a search for the proceeds, including three specifically described rings.6
Pursuant to the warrant, LaRault searched petitioner's residence, but he did not find the stolen property.7 During the course of the search, however, he discovered the weapons in plain view and seized them.8 Specifically, he seized an Uzi machine gun, a .38-caliber revolver, two stun guns, a handcuff key, a San Jose Coin Club advertising brochure, and a few items of clothing identified by the victim.9 LaRault testified that while he was searching for the rings, he also was interested in finding other evidence connecting petitioner to the robbery.10
The trial court refused to suppress the evidence found in petitioner's home and, after a jury trial, petitioner was found guilty and sentenced to prison.11 The California Court of Appeal affirmed.12 It rejected petitioner's argument that the decision in Coolidge required suppression of the seized evidence that had not been listed in the warrant because its discovery was not inadvertent.13 The California Supreme Court denied petitioner's request for review.14 The Supreme Court granted certiorari.15
Whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits the warrantless seizure of evidence of crime in plain view if the discovery of the evidence was not inadvertent?16
Under the plain view doctrine, if police are lawfully in a position from which they view an object, if its incriminating character is immediately apparent, and if the officers have a lawful right of access to the object, they may seize it without a warrant.17 The requirement that the discovery be inadvertent is not essential to the doctrine's applicability.18
No. Petitioner Terry Brice Horton was convicted of the armed robbery of Erwin Wallaker, the treasurer of the San Jose Coin Club.19 When Wallaker returned to his home after the Club's annual show, he entered his garage and was accosted by two masked men, one armed with a machine gun and the other with an electrical shocking device. Sergeant LaRault determined that there was probable cause to search petitioner's home for the proceeds of the robbery and for the weapons used by the robbers, but the warrant only authorized a search for the proceeds.20 During the course of the search, LaRault discovered the weapons in plain view and seized them.21
The fact that the officer who directed the search knew in advance that the weapons were in Horton’s home does not affect the lawfulness of the seizure under the plain view doctrine because the officer was lawfully in the position, the incriminating character was immediately apparent, and he had lawful right of access.22
The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless seizure of evidence in plain view even though the discovery of the evidence was not inadvertent.23
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Marshall
Justice Brennan dissented on the ground that the inadvertence requirement is an essential part of the plain view doctrine.24 The requirement serves important purposes in preventing abuse of the warrant process.25
He argued that the majority's decision allows police officers to obtain a warrant to search for one item.26 They could then use that warrant as a pretext to search for other items that they had probable cause to seize but failed to particularize in the warrant. This undermines the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment.27
Brennan concluded that he would reverse the judgment of the California Court of Appeal.28