Coolidge v. New Hampshire

Coolidge v. New Hampshire
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 12, 1971 Decided June 21, 1971
Full case name	Coolidge v. New Hampshire
Prior history	Certiorari to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Holding
The warrant for the search and seizure of petitioner's automobile did not satisfy the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, because it was not issued by a "neutral and detached magistrate."
Court membership
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger Associate Justices Hugo Black · William O. Douglas John M. Harlan II · William J. Brennan, Jr Potter Stewart · Byron White Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun
Case opinions
Majority	Stewart, joined by Burger, Harlan, Douglas, Brennan, Marshall
Concurrence	Harlan
Concur/dissent	Burger
Concur/dissent	Black, joined by Burger, Blackmun
Concur/dissent	White, joined by Burger

Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971) was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the Fourth Amendment and the automobile exception.

The state sought to justify the search of Edward Coolidge's car on three theories: automobile exception, search incident, and plain view.

Facts of the Case: 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 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.

In a decision in which a number of justices chose to concur in part and dissent in part, 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 detached 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.

Further reading

• Wright, Charles Alan (1971), "Must the Criminal Go Free If the Constable Blunders", Texas Law Review 50 (4): 736–745 .

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_323