Horton v. California (1990) 496 US 128

Plain View Doctrine

A search warrant for a suspected robber’s residence authorized the seizure of stolen property. While there, LE saw firearms in plain sight. LE knew weapons were involved in the robbery but the search warrant did not authorize seizure. LE seized them and asserted the plain view doctrine as an exception to the warrant requirement. To qualify for the plain view doctrine, two factors must be met: 1) the incriminating nature of the object is immediately apparent and 2) the item was seen from a location that LE had a right to be. Here the search warrant authorized LE to be present and the weapons were apparent to have been evidence in the case.