# Texas v. Brown > Supreme Court of the United States · April 19, 1983 · 460 U.S. 730 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9429132 ## Case - **Full name:** Texas v. Brown - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** April 19, 1983 - **Citations:** 460 U.S. 730; 51 U.S.L.W. 4361; 103 S. Ct. 1535; 75 L. Ed. 2d 502; 1983 U.S. LEXIS 143 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by White - **Judges:** Blackmun, Brennan, Burger, Marshall, O'ConnoR, Powell, Rehnquist, Stevens, White - **Cited by:** 2,739 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - **Yellow flag:** Reported abrogated on other grounds by Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) — not on the Supreme Court's list. - Negative treatments: 2 - Distinguished by: 0 - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9429132 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - finding that an officer had probable cause that an “opaque, green party balloon, knotted about one-half inch from the tip” contained drugs because “the distinctive character of the balloon itself spoke volumes as to its contents—particularly to the trained eye of the officer,”… - stating that “[w]hen a police officer has [lawfully] observed an object in ‘plain view,’ the owner’s remaining interests in the object are merely those of possession and ownership . . . . Likewise, . . . requiring police to obtain a warrant once they have [lawfully] obtained a… - holding that an officer’s bending down and using a flashlight in order to obtain a better view into a car did not violate the driver’s Fourth Amendment rights because "[t]here is no legitimate expectation of privacy shielding that portion of the interior of an automobile which… - holding that probable cause merely requires that facts available to officer would warrant man of reasonable caution to believe that items are contraband; probable cause did not require showing that such belief was correct or more likely true than false; and police officer did … - explaining that "it is important to distinguish plain view as used in Coolidge to justify the seizure of an object, from an officer's mere observation of an item left in plain view[;] whereas the latter generally involves no Fourth Amendment search, the former implicates the F… ## Opinion text Justice White, concurring. While joining Justice Rehnquist’s plurality opinion, I continue to disagree with the views of four Justices in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443, 469 (1971), that plain-view seizures are valid only if the viewing is “inadvertent.” Nor does the Court purport to endorse that view in its opinions today. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9429132. Public record. Not legal advice.