Coolidge V. New Hampshire

Coolidge V. New Hampshire

$1.25

By: Jessica Ramirez

Vol XCIII, No. 311

4th Amendment

What Is This Case About?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Murder

Edward Coolidge's Investigation

In the wake of a "particularly brutal" murder of a fourteen-year-old girl, the New Hampshire Attorney General took charge of police activities relating to the murder. When the police applied for a warrant to search suspect Edward Coolidge's automobile, the Attorney General, acting as a justice of the peace, authorized it. Additionally, local police had taken items from Coolidge's home during the course of an interview with the suspect's wife. Coolidge was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. Police went to edward's home on January 28, 1964, to question him about a murder. In the course of their inquiry, he showed them three guns, and he agreed to take a lie detector test on February 2. The test was inconclusive on the murder, but, during its course, he admitted a theft. In edward's absence, two other policemen came to the house and questioned edward's wife to check his story and confirm his admission of the theft. Unaware of the visit of the other officers who had been shown the guns and knowing little about the murder weapon, the police asked about any guns there might be in the house, and were shown four by his wife which she offered to let them take. After one policeman first declined the offer, they took the guns, along with various articles of edward's clothing his wife made available to them

Quotation 1

Why does this affect law enforcement?

Vehicle Exception

It affects law enforcement because police officers searched and seized things from Edward Coolidge's house and car in which they did not have a justifiable warrant from a judge but from an attorney.

The seizure of the car in the driveway cannot be justified as incidental to the arrest, which took place inside the house. Even assuming that the police could properly have made a warrantless search of the car in the driveway when they arrested Edward Coolidge, they could not have done so at their leisure after its removal.The basic constitutional rule is that "searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment -- subject only to a few specifically established and well defined exceptions," and, on the facts of this case, a warrant less search and seizure of the car cannot be justified under those exceptions. The Court held that the searches and seizures of Coolidge's property were unconstitutional. Justice Stewart's opinion held that the warrant authorizing the seizure of Coolidge's automobile was invalid because it was not issued by a "neutral and detatched magistrate." Stewart also rejected New Hampshire's arguments in favor of making an exception to the warrant requirement. Stewart held that neither the "incident to arrest" doctrine nor the "plain view" doctrine justified the search, and that an "automobile exception" was inapplicable