horton
california
argued
february
decided
june
california
policeman
determined
probable
cause
search
petitioner
horton
home
proceeds
robbery
robbers
weapons
search
warrant
affidavit
referred
police
reports
described
weapons
proceeds
warrant
issued
magistrate
authorized
search
proceeds
upon
executing
warrant
officer
find
stolen
property
find
weapons
plain
view
seized
trial
refused
suppress
seized
evidence
horton
convicted
armed
robbery
california
appeal
affirmed
since
officer
testified
searching
horton
home
stolen
property
also
interested
finding
evidence
connecting
horton
robbery
seized
evidence
discovered
inadvertently
however
rejecting
horton
argument
coolidge
new
hampshire
therefore
required
suppression
evidence
appeal
relied
state
decision
holding
coolidge
discussion
inadvertence
limitation
doctrine
binding
contained
plurality
opinion
held
fourth
amendment
prohibit
warrantless
seizure
evidence
plain
view
even
though
discovery
evidence
inadvertent
although
inadvertence
characteristic
legitimate
seizures
necessary
condition
pp
coolidge
binding
precedent
however
second
coolidge
plurality
two
limitations
doctrine
discovery
evidence
plain
view
must
inadvertent
essential
rejection
state
argument
case
rather
first
limitation
plain
view
alone
never
enough
justify
warrantless
seizure
adequately
supports
holding
gunpowder
found
vacuum
sweepings
one
automobiles
seized
plain
view
defendant
driveway
course
arrest
introduced
warrantless
seizures
violated
fourth
amendment
order
warrantless
seizure
object
plain
view
valid
two
conditions
must
satisfied
addition
essential
predicate
officer
violate
fourth
amendment
arriving
place
object
plainly
viewed
first
object
incriminating
character
must
immediately
apparent
although
cars
coolidge
obviously
plain
view
probative
value
remained
uncertain
interiors
swept
examined
microscopically
second
officer
must
lawful
right
access
object
justice
harlan
concurred
coolidge
judgment
join
plurality
discussion
may
well
rested
vote
fact
cars
seizure
accomplished
means
warrantless
trespass
defendant
property
pp
two
flaws
coolidge
plurality
conclusion
inadvertence
requirement
necessary
avoid
violation
fourth
amendment
mandate
valid
warrant
particularly
describ
things
seized
first
evenhanded
law
enforcement
best
achieved
applying
objective
standards
conduct
rather
standards
depend
upon
officer
subjective
state
mind
fact
officer
interested
item
fully
expects
find
invalidate
seizure
search
confined
area
duration
warrant
terms
valid
exception
warrant
requirement
second
suggestion
inadvertence
requirement
necessary
prevent
police
conducting
general
searches
converting
specific
warrants
general
warrants
persuasive
interest
already
served
requirements
unparticularized
warrant
issued
warrantless
search
circumscribed
exigencies
justify
initiation
search
scope
enlarged
warrant
omission
reference
weapons
indeed
search
weapons
taken
place
named
items
found
surrendered
outset
prohibition
general
searches
warrants
based
privacy
concerns
implicated
officer
lawful
right
access
item
plain
view
seizes
without
warrant
pp
stevens
delivered
opinion
rehnquist
white
blackmun
scalia
kennedy
joined
brennan
filed
dissenting
opinion
marshall
joined
post
juliana
drous
appointment
argued
cause
filed
briefs
petitioner
martin
kaye
supervising
deputy
attorney
general
california
argued
cause
respondent
brief
john
van
de
kamp
attorney
general
richard
iglehart
chief
assistant
attorney
general
john
sugiyama
senior
assistant
attorney
general
clifford
thompson
deputy
attorney
general
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
filed
solicitor
general
starr
assistant
attorney
general
dennis
deputy
solicitor
general
bryson
brian
martin
americans
effective
law
enforcement
et
al
gregory
evans
daniel
hales
george
webster
jack
yelverton
fred
inbau
wayne
schmidt
bernard
farber
james
manak
justice
stevens
delivered
opinion
case
revisit
issue
considered
conclusively
resolved
coolidge
new
hampshire
whether
warrantless
seizure
evidence
crime
plain
view
prohibited
fourth
amendment
discovery
evidence
inadvertent
conclude
even
though
inadvertence
characteristic
legitimate
seizures
necessary
condition
petitioner
convicted
armed
robbery
erwin
wallaker
treasurer
san
jose
coin
club
wallaker
returned
home
club
annual
show
entered
garage
accosted
two
masked
men
one
armed
machine
gun
electrical
shocking
device
sometimes
referred
stun
gun
two
men
shocked
wallaker
bound
handcuffed
robbed
jewelry
cash
encounter
sufficient
conversation
took
place
enable
wallaker
subsequently
identify
petitioner
distinctive
voice
identification
partially
corroborated
witness
saw
robbers
leaving
scene
evidence
petitioner
attended
coin
show
sergeant
larault
experienced
police
officer
investigated
crime
determined
probable
cause
search
petitioner
home
proceeds
robbery
weapons
used
robbers
affidavit
search
warrant
referred
police
reports
described
weapons
well
proceeds
warrant
issued
magistrate
authorized
search
proceeds
including
three
specifically
described
rings
pursuant
warrant
larault
searched
petitioner
residence
find
stolen
property
course
search
however
discovered
weapons
plain
view
seized
specifically
seized
uzi
machine
gun
revolver
two
stun
guns
handcuff
key
san
jose
coin
club
advertising
brochure
items
clothing
identified
victim
larault
testified
searching
rings
also
interested
finding
evidence
connecting
petitioner
robbery
thus
seized
evidence
discovered
inadvertently
trial
refused
suppress
evidence
found
petitioner
home
jury
trial
petitioner
found
guilty
sentenced
prison
california
appeal
affirmed
app
rejected
petitioner
argument
decision
coolidge
required
suppression
seized
evidence
listed
warrant
discovery
inadvertent
app
relied
california
decision
north
superior
cal
case
noted
discussion
inadvertence
limitation
doctrine
justice
stewart
opinion
coolidge
joined
three
members
therefore
binding
california
denied
petitioner
request
review
app
california
courts
interpretation
doctrine
conflicts
view
courts
unresolved
issue
important
granted
certiorari
ii
fourth
amendment
provides
right
people
secure
persons
houses
papers
effects
unreasonable
searches
seizures
shall
violated
warrants
shall
issue
upon
probable
cause
supported
oath
affirmation
particularly
describing
place
searched
persons
things
seized
criteria
generally
guide
seizures
set
forth
coolidge
new
hampshire
held
police
seizing
two
automobiles
parked
plain
view
defendant
driveway
course
arresting
defendant
violated
fourth
amendment
accordingly
particles
gunpowder
subsequently
found
vacuum
sweepings
one
cars
introduced
evidence
defendant
state
endeavored
justify
seizure
automobiles
subsequent
search
police
station
four
different
grounds
including
doctrine
scope
doctrine
developed
earlier
cases
fairly
summarized
three
paragraphs
justice
stewart
opinion
well
established
certain
circumstances
police
may
seize
evidence
plain
view
without
warrant
important
keep
mind
vast
majority
cases
evidence
seized
police
plain
view
least
moment
seizure
problem
doctrine
identify
circumstances
plain
view
legal
significance
rather
simply
normal
concomitant
search
legal
illegal
example
applicability
doctrine
situation
police
warrant
search
given
area
specified
objects
course
search
come
across
article
incriminating
character
cf
importing
lefkowitz
steele
stanley
georgia
stewart
concurring
result
initial
intrusion
brings
police
within
plain
view
article
supported
warrant
one
recognized
exceptions
warrant
requirement
seizure
also
legitimate
thus
police
may
inadvertently
come
across
evidence
hot
pursuit
fleeing
suspect
warden
hayden
cf
hester
object
comes
view
search
incident
arrest
appropriately
limited
scope
existing
law
may
seized
without
warrant
chimel
california
finally
doctrine
applied
police
officer
searching
evidence
accused
nonetheless
inadvertently
comes
across
incriminating
object
harris
frazier
cupp
ker
california
cf
lewis
cases
common
police
officer
prior
justification
intrusion
course
came
inadvertently
across
piece
evidence
incriminating
accused
doctrine
serves
supplement
prior
justification
whether
warrant
another
object
hot
pursuit
search
incident
lawful
arrest
legitimate
reason
present
unconnected
search
directed
accused
permits
warrantless
seizure
course
extension
original
justification
legitimate
immediately
apparent
police
evidence
doctrine
may
used
extend
general
exploratory
search
one
object
another
something
incriminating
last
emerges
omitted
justice
stewart
analysis
doctrine
command
majority
plurality
since
made
clear
discussion
binding
precedent
texas
brown
opinion
rehnquist
justice
harlan
concurred
judgment
response
dissenting
opinions
join
plurality
discussion
doctrine
see
decision
nonetheless
binding
precedent
discussing
second
limitation
implicated
case
therefore
necessary
explain
first
adequately
supports
judgment
course
essential
predicate
valid
warrantless
seizure
incriminating
evidence
officer
violate
fourth
amendment
arriving
place
evidence
plainly
viewed
moreover
two
additional
conditions
must
satisfied
justify
warrantless
seizure
first
must
item
plain
view
incriminating
character
must
also
immediately
apparent
see
also
arizona
hicks
thus
coolidge
cars
obviously
plain
view
probative
value
remained
uncertain
interiors
swept
examined
microscopically
second
must
officer
lawfully
located
place
object
plainly
seen
must
also
lawful
right
access
object
suggested
justice
harlan
vote
coolidge
may
rested
fact
seizure
cars
accomplished
means
warrantless
trespass
defendant
property
events
satisfied
absence
inadvertence
essential
rejection
state
argument
coolidge
iii
justice
stewart
concluded
inadvertence
requirement
necessary
avoid
violation
express
constitutional
requirement
valid
warrant
must
particularly
describe
things
seized
explained
rationale
exception
warrant
requirement
stated
seizure
turn
initially
valid
therefore
limited
search
general
one
inconvenience
procuring
warrant
cover
inadvertent
discovery
great
discovery
anticipated
police
know
advance
location
evidence
intend
seize
situation
altogether
different
requirement
warrant
seize
imposes
inconvenience
whatever
least
none
constitutionally
cognizable
legal
system
regards
warrantless
searches
per
se
unreasonable
absence
exigent
circumstances
initial
intrusion
bottomed
upon
warrant
fails
mention
particular
object
though
police
know
location
intend
seize
violation
express
constitutional
requirement
warrants
particularly
describing
things
seized
let
us
suppose
officers
secure
warrant
search
house
rifle
staying
well
within
range
rifle
search
discover
two
photographs
murder
victim
plain
sight
bedroom
assume
also
discovery
one
photograph
inadvertent
finding
anticipated
permit
seizure
one
photographs
terms
minor
peril
fourth
amendment
values
surely
difference
two
photographs
interference
possession
case
officers
appraisal
photograph
expected
see
less
reliable
judgment
situations
actual
inconvenience
danger
evidence
remain
identical
officers
must
depart
secure
warrant
scope
warrantless
search
automobile
thus
defined
nature
container
contraband
secreted
rather
defined
object
search
places
probable
cause
believe
may
found
probable
cause
believe
stolen
lawnmower
may
found
garage
support
warrant
search
upstairs
bedroom
probable
cause
believe
undocumented
aliens
transported
van
justify
warrantless
search
suitcase
probable
cause
believe
container
placed
trunk
taxi
contains
contraband
evidence
justify
search
entire
cab
ross
police
warrant
rifle
may
search
places
rifles
might
must
terminate
search
rifle
found
inadvertence
rule
way
reduce
number
places
may
lawfully
look
case
items
seized
petitioner
home
discovered
lawful
search
authorized
valid
warrant
discovered
immediately
apparent
officer
constituted
incriminating
evidence
probable
cause
obtain
warrant
search
stolen
property
also
believe
weapons
handguns
used
crime
investigating
search
authorized
warrant
seizure
authorized
doctrine
judgment
affirmed
ordered
footnotes
coolidge
police
arrested
murder
suspect
house
thereupon
seized
automobile
searched
later
police
station
finding
physical
evidence
victim
inside
vehicle
record
disclosed
police
known
time
probable
role
car
crime
exigent
circumstances
justify
warrantless
search
accordingly
plurality
opinion
justice
stewart
concluded
seizure
justified
theory
vehicle
instrumentality
crime
discovered
plain
view
officers
justice
stewart
opinion
doctrine
applicable
inadvertent
discovery
incriminating
evidence
plurality
opinion
coolidge
entitled
binding
effect
precedent
difficulty
distinguishing
holding
instant
case
discovery
petitioner
car
inadvertent
coolidge
however
portion
justice
stewart
plurality
opinion
proposed
adoption
new
restrictions
rule
signed
four
members
stewart
douglas
brennan
marshall
although
concurring
judgment
justice
harlan
declined
join
portion
opinion
four
remaining
justices
expressly
disagreed
justice
stewart
point
north
superior
cal
citations
omitted
see
wolfenbarger
williams
currency
roberts
cert
denied
antill
terry
state
ark
app
state
johnson
app
commonwealth
cefalo
mass
state
sanders
app
state
galloway
clark
state
ind
state
eiseman
state
mccolgan
crim
app
tucker
state
crim
app
state
dingle
see
also
cases
cited
appendices
justice
brennan
dissenting
opinion
post
least
two
state
courts
agreed
california
see
state
pontier
idaho
state
romero
utah
reaffirm
basic
rule
fourth
amendment
jurisprudence
stated
justice
stewart
unanimous
mincey
arizona
fourth
amendment
proscribes
unreasonable
searches
seizures
cardinal
principle
searches
conducted
outside
judicial
process
without
prior
approval
judge
magistrate
per
se
unreasonable
fourth
amendment
subject
specifically
established
exceptions
katz
footnotes
omitted
ross
important
distinguish
plain
view
used
coolidge
justify
seizure
object
officer
mere
observation
item
left
plain
view
whereas
latter
generally
involves
fourth
amendment
search
see
infra
katz
former
generally
implicate
amendment
limitations
upon
seizures
personal
property
texas
brown
opinion
rehnquist
state
primarily
contended
seizures
authorized
warrant
issued
attorney
general
held
warrant
invalid
issued
neutral
detached
magistrate
addition
state
relied
three
exceptions
warrant
requirement
search
incident
arrest
automobile
exception
doctrine
simply
corollary
familiar
principle
discussed
amount
probable
cause
justify
warrantless
search
seizure
absent
exigent
circumstances
incontrovertible
testimony
senses
incriminating
object
premises
belonging
criminal
suspect
may
establish
fullest
possible
measure
probable
cause
even
object
contraband
repeatedly
stated
enforced
basic
rule
police
may
enter
make
warrantless
seizure
taylor
johnson
mcdonald
jones
chapman
trupiano
coolidge
since
applied
rule
arrest
person
home
see
minnesota
olson
payton
new
york
see
brief
amicus
curiae
police
probable
cause
search
photograph
well
rifle
proceed
seek
warrant
possible
motive
deliberately
including
rifle
omitting
photograph
quite
contrary
true
oversight
careless
mistake
explain
omission
warrant
application
police
convinced
probable
cause
search
photograph
coolidge
white
concurring
dissenting
warrant
clause
fourth
amendment
categorically
prohibits
issuance
warrant
except
one
particularly
describing
place
searched
persons
things
seized
manifest
purpose
particularity
requirement
prevent
general
searches
limiting
authorization
search
specific
areas
things
probable
cause
search
requirement
ensures
search
carefully
tailored
justifications
take
character
exploratory
searches
framers
intended
prohibit
maryland
garrison
even
item
container
seizure
compromise
interest
preserving
privacy
contents
may
opened
pursuant
either
search
warrant
see
smith
ohio
place
arkansas
sanders
chadwick
van
leeuwen
ex
parte
jackson
one
exceptions
warrant
requirement
see
colorado
bertine
ross
justice
brennan
justice
marshall
joins
dissenting
remain
convinced
justice
stewart
correctly
articulated
doctrine
coolidge
new
hampshire
fourth
amendment
permits
law
enforcement
officers
seize
items
warrant
items
found
plain
view
officers
lawfully
position
observe
items
discovery
items
inadvertent
immediately
apparent
officers
items
evidence
crime
contraband
otherwise
subject
seizure
eschewing
inadvertent
discovery
requirement
majority
ignores
fourth
amendment
express
command
warrants
particularly
describe
places
searched
also
things
seized
respectfully
dissent
rewriting
fourth
amendment
fourth
amendment
right
people
secure
persons
houses
papers
effects
unreasonable
searches
seizures
shall
violated
warrants
shall
issue
upon
probable
cause
supported
oath
affirmation
particularly
describing
place
searched
persons
things
seized
amendment
protects
equally
important
interests
precisely
manner
requiring
neutral
detached
magistrate
evaluate
search
seizure
government
showing
probable
cause
particular
description
place
searched
items
seized
accordingly
warrantless
search
per
se
unreasonable
absent
exigent
circumstances
seizure
personal
property
per
se
unreasonable
within
meaning
fourth
amendment
unless
accomplished
pursuant
judicial
warrant
issued
upon
probable
cause
particularly
describing
items
seized
place
omitted
citing
marron
prior
review
neutral
detached
magistrate
means
effectuating
fourth
amendment
rights
district
eastern
district
michigan
decision
invade
possessory
interest
property
important
left
discretion
zealous
officers
engaged
often
competitive
enterprise
ferreting
crime
johnson
requirement
warrants
shall
particularly
describe
things
seized
makes
general
searches
impossible
prevents
seizure
one
thing
warrant
describing
another
taken
nothing
left
discretion
officer
executing
warrant
marron
supra
doctrine
exception
general
rule
seizure
personal
property
must
authorized
warrant
justice
stewart
explained
coolidge
accept
warrantless
seizure
officer
lawfully
location
inadvertently
sees
evidence
crime
inconvenience
procuring
warrant
seize
newly
discovered
piece
evidence
discovery
anticipated
police
know
advance
location
evidence
intend
seize
argument
procuring
warrant
inconvenient
loses
much
force
ibid
barring
exigency
reason
police
officers
obtained
warrant
seize
evidence
entering
premises
rationale
behind
inadvertent
discovery
requirement
simply
excuse
officers
general
requirement
warrant
seize
officers
know
location
evidence
probable
cause
seize
intend
seize
yet
bother
obtain
warrant
particularly
describing
evidence
violate
express
constitutional
requirement
warrants
particularly
describing
things
seized
fly
face
basic
rule
amount
probable
cause
justify
warrantless
seizure
although
joined
three
members
justice
stewart
discussion
inadvertent
discovery
requirement
become
widely
accepted
see
texas
brown
supra
powell
concurring
judgment
whatever
view
might
coolidge
decided
see
reason
late
date
imply
criticism
articulation
exception
accepted
generally
decade
district
columbia
courts
appeals
require
seizures
inadvertent
outcry
law
enforcement
officials
inadvertent
discovery
requirement
unduly
burdens
efforts
given
requirement
inescapably
rooted
plain
language
fourth
amendment
fathom
enthusiasm
discarding
element
doctrine
posits
two
flaws
justice
stewart
reasoning
believes
demonstrate
inappropriateness
inadvertent
discovery
requirement
flaws
illusory
first
majority
explains
see
reason
officer
knowledge
approaching
certainty
item
found
particular
location
deliberately
omit
particular
description
item
seized
application
search
warrant
ante
individual
whose
possessory
interest
invaded
matters
police
officer
decided
omit
particular
item
application
search
warrant
officer
probable
cause
seize
item
fails
mention
item
application
search
warrant
whatever
reason
seizes
item
anyway
conduct
per
se
unreasonable
suppression
evidence
seized
encourage
officers
precise
complete
future
warrant
applications
furthermore
number
instances
law
enforcement
officer
might
deliberately
choose
omit
certain
items
warrant
application
even
though
probable
cause
seize
knows
premises
intends
seize
discovered
plain
view
example
warrant
application
process
often
time
consuming
especially
police
attempt
seize
large
number
items
officer
interested
conducting
search
soon
possible
might
decide
save
time
listing
one
two
items
stolen
rings
case
confident
find
plain
view
evidence
looking
discovers
listed
items
rings
located
almost
anywhere
inside
outside
house
unlikely
warrant
search
seize
rings
restrict
scope
search
officer
might
rationally
find
risk
immediately
discovering
items
listed
warrant
thereby
forcing
conclude
search
immediately
outweighed
time
saved
application
process
majority
also
contends
officer
lawfully
house
scope
search
adequately
circumscribed
warrant
additional
fourth
amendment
interest
furthered
requiring
discovery
evidence
inadvertent
ante
put
another
way
inadvertence
rule
way
reduce
number
places
law
enforcement
officers
may
lawfully
look
ante
quoting
coolidge
white
concurring
dissenting
majority
correct
asked
wrong
question
true
inadvertent
discovery
requirement
furthers
privacy
interests
requirement
way
reduces
scope
search
number
places
officers
may
look
protect
possessory
interests
cf
illinois
andreas
doctrine
grounded
proposition
police
lawfully
position
observe
item
owner
privacy
interest
item
lost
owner
may
retain
incidents
title
possession
privacy
emphasis
added
inadvertent
discovery
requirement
essential
take
seriously
fourth
amendment
protection
possessory
interests
well
privacy
interests
see
supra
today
eliminates
rule
designed
possessory
interests
ground
fails
privacy
interests
countenance
constitutional
legerdemain
ii
fortunately
decision
limited
impact
confronted
today
lower
courts
described
pretextual
search
see
state
lair
en
banc
holding
pretextual
searches
invalid
example
officer
enters
house
pursuant
warrant
search
evidence
one
crime
really
interested
seizing
evidence
relating
another
crime
warrant
search
pretextual
fruits
search
suppressed
see
state
kelsey
mo
app
evidence
suppressed
officers
ample
opportunity
obtain
warrant
relating
murder
investigation
entered
premises
instead
pursuant
warrant
relating
drug
investigation
searched
hiding
place
murder
weapon
rather
conducting
top
bottom
search
drugs
similarly
officer
might
use
exception
generally
applicable
warrant
requirement
hot
pursuit
pretext
enter
home
seize
items
knows
find
plain
view
conduct
deliberate
attempt
circumvent
constitutional
requirement
warrant
particularly
describing
place
searched
persons
things
seized
condoned
discovery
evidence
pretextual
searches
inadvertent
suppressed
reason
even
state
courts
rejected
inadvertent
discovery
requirement
held
fourth
amendment
prohibits
pretextual
searches
see
state
bussard
idaho
state
kelly
utah
opinion
today
address
pretextual
searches
doubt
searches
violate
fourth
amendment
iii
fourth
amendment
demands
individual
possessory
interest
property
protected
unreasonable
governmental
seizures
requiring
showing
probable
cause
also
requiring
neutral
detached
magistrate
authorize
seizure
advance
today
ignores
explicit
language
fourth
amendment
protects
possessory
interests
manner
protects
privacy
interests
order
eliminate
generally
accepted
element
doctrine
caused
apparent
difficulties
law
enforcement
officers
confident
however
confronted
egregious
police
conduct
found
case
ante
pretextual
searches
interpretation
constitution
less
parsimonious
today
respectfully
dissent
appendix
adopted
inadvertent
discovery
requirement
alaska
deal
state
alaska
state
ault
ark
johnson
state
ark
people
cummings
state
hamilton
gant
dc
app
hurt
state
app
review
denied
mooney
state
cert
denied
haw
state
barnett
haw
people
madison
cert
denied
ind
clark
state
ind
iowa
state
emerson
iowa
state
doile
patrick
commonwealth
la
state
stott
la
state
cloutier
md
wiggins
state
md
mass
commonwealth
cefalo
mass
people
dugan
app
cert
denied
state
buschkopf
miss
smith
state
miss
cert
denied
mo
state
clark
mo
cert
denied
mont
state
hembd
mont
neb
state
hansen
neb
johnson
state
state
cote
state
bruzzese
cert
denied
state
luna
people
jackson
state
white
cert
denied
state
riedinger
ohio
state
benner
ohio
cert
denied
farmer
state
crim
app
state
handran
app
review
denied
commonwealth
davidson
super
state
robalewski
state
culbreath
state
albright
state
byerley
tex
stoker
state
tex
crim
app
en
banc
state
dorn
holloman
commonwealth
state
bell
state
moore
state
washington
wyo
jessee
state
wyo
appendix
courts
appeals
adopted
inadvertent
discovery
requirement
cert
denied
meyer
tarantino
baker
crowder
sinyard
cert
pending
poulos
perry
peterson
holzman
wolfenbarger
williams
cadc
search
warrant
dated
july
premises
street
northwest
washington
app
cert
denied
majority
recognizes
requirement
warrants
particularly
describe
things
seized
also
protects
privacy
interests
preventing
general
searches
ante
scope
search
limited
places
probable
cause
believe
item
particularly
described
warrant
might
found
police
officer
search
lawnmower
bedroom
undocumented
alien
suitcase
ante
citing
ross
similarly
items
particularly
described
warrant
found
search
must
cease
invasion
privacy
permitted
ante
see
appendix
infra
three
california
idaho
utah
rejected
inadvertent
discovery
requirement
see
people
bittaker
cal
cert
pending
state
pontier
idaho
state
kelly
utah
status
inadvertent
discovery
requirement
delaware
unclear
see
wicks
state
del
super
see
appendix
infra
also
dispute
unconstitutionality
search
goes
far
astray
search
items
mentioned
warrant
becomes
general
exploratory
search
evidence
wrongdoing
might
found
tranquillo
supp
md
indeed
reiterates
converting
specific
warrants
general
warrants
unconstitutional
emphasizes
need
scrupulous
adherence
requirements
warrants
particularly
describe
place
searched
things
seized
warrantless
search
circumscribed
exigencies
justify
initiation
ante