Author Question: In Horton v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that inadvertence was no longer a ... (Read 28 times)

Charlie · **on:** Aug 13, 2018

In Horton v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that inadvertence was no longer a requirement of the plain view doctrine. Do you agree or disagree with the decision? Explain why or why not.

What will be an ideal response?

Question 2

Abandonment implies giving up possession, ownership, or any reasonable expectation of privacy.

a. True
b. False
Indicate whether the statement is true or false

meganlapinski · **Reply #1 on:** Aug 13, 2018

Answer to Question 1

I agree with the decision in the Horton case that inadvertence should not be a
requirement of the plain view doctrine. If the purpose of the exclusionary rule is to
protect individuals from unreasonable searches and searches, isn't it reasonable for
officers to act following what a reasonable person would do under the
circumstances? If the officer has the lawful right to be there, the expectation of
privacy should be less.

Answer to Question 2

TRUE