Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Coolidge v. New Hampshire

Supreme Court of the United States · 1971 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureFourth Amendmentplain viewwarrantinadvertent discoveryFourth Amendmentwarrant requirementneutral magistrate

Facts

Police investigating a murder came to believe that Coolidge's 1951 Pontiac had played a role in the crime. The New Hampshire Attorney General, who was personally directing the investigation and later served as chief prosecutor, issued a search warrant for the Pontiac while acting as a justice of the peace. Police arrested Coolidge at his house, seized the Pontiac from his driveway, towed it to the station, and searched it later; sweepings from the car were introduced at trial. On an earlier visit to the house, while Coolidge was at the station, officers asked Mrs. Coolidge about guns and clothing, and she voluntarily produced guns and clothes that police later used as evidence.

Issue

Whether the seizure and later search of Coolidge's automobile violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments when the warrant was issued by the Attorney General directing the investigation, and whether the seizure could nevertheless be justified under the search-incident, automobile, or plain-view exceptions. Also, whether the police acquisition of guns and clothing from Mrs. Coolidge on February 2 was an unconstitutional search and seizure.

Rule

A search warrant is constitutionally invalid unless issued by a neutral and detached magistrate, and a prosecutor or police official directing an investigation cannot serve that role in his own case. Warrantless searches and seizures are per se unreasonable absent a specifically established exception supported by exigent circumstances. Plain view alone never justifies a warrantless seizure; the officer must have a prior lawful justification for the intrusion, the incriminating character must be immediately apparent, and the discovery must be inadvertent.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Omaha, the county prosecutor personally supervised a homicide investigation, directed witness interviews, and later planned to try the case. Acting under a state statute authorizing prosecutors to issue warrants, the prosecutor signed a warrant to search Devin Cole's garage for clothing and tools tied to the crime.

If Devin moves to suppress items found in the garage, what is the strongest argument for suppression?

Explanation. The majority held that the warrant requirement demands a neutral and detached magistrate, and that prosecutors or police officials engaged in the competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime are per se disqualified from serving that role in their own investigations. State authorization and the existence of probable cause do not cure that constitutional defect.