The ruling in Horton v California (1990) primarily addressed what issue related to law enforcement?

The ruling in Horton v. California (1990) primarily focused on the validity of seizures conducted under the plain view doctrine. In this case, the Supreme Court examined whether an item that is not described in a warrant can be legally seized when it is observed in plain view by law enforcement officers during a lawful presence at a location. The Court ultimately determined that as long as the officers are lawfully present and the item is immediately recognizable as contraband or evidence of a crime, they can seize it without a warrant, thus reinforcing the plain view doctrine's role in law enforcement practices.

This case is significant because it clarified the standard by which law enforcement can seize evidence, emphasizing the importance of the officer's lawful presence and the clear recognition of the item's illegal nature. The other options do not pertain to the primary issue addressed in this ruling: searches being conducted by a specific number of officers, requirements for warrants, and procedures for traffic stops are not central themes in this case.