preview

Horton Vs California Essay

Decent Essays

In the Plain View Doctrine, it is legal that when attempting a search for another means, a public official can seize other evidence that may not be accompanied with that crime as the findings are of criminal activity. Even though, a police officer may have already secured a warrant but have specified what their findings will be in detail, there are still loopholes even within their statement, Horton v. California. Therefore, even when inadvertently seizing the evidence, it is still confined as validified evidence due to the officer’s lawful right to seize something even if there is no warrant. In general, even with the exceptions to the requirement of warrantless searches, there has to always be a general rule that even the cases above me have to inquire within their proposed holding of the case and its circumstances. Most searches and seizures, warrantless or not, are …show more content…

General warrants and writs of assistance were frequently used by the British government, allowing British agents to conduct random searches and intrusions into a person’s home without any legal foundation. These intrusions were irrational and were done for the sole purpose of finding “something” that would help incriminate a person and make a case stronger against them. However, to limit these random intrusions and to protect the rights of people the Founding Fathers created provisions to prohibit such conduct from the government. The Framers added the 4th Amendment to the Bill of Rights in hopes that an individual’s security and privacy would be saved from “prejudicial raids” (TotallyHistory, 2012). It is important to remember that the 4th Amendment applies only to those who are acting on behalf of the government; it does not apply to searches or seizures done by private organizations or citizens. Originally the 4th Amendment

Get Access