Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971)

2012-06-08 10:23:04

In Coolidge v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court addressed the question of which state officials may validly issue search warrants.

In 1964, a fourteen-year-old girl was murdered in Manchester, New Hampshire. A subsequent investigation led the police to suspect Edward H. Coolidge, Jr., of the crime. The police presented their evidence to the State Attorney General who supervised the investigation and who would later serve as chief prosecutor at Coolidge’s trial. Acting in his capacity as a justice of the peace under New Hampshire law, the Attorney General issued a search warrant for Coolidge’s car. The police impounded the car, vacuumed its carpet, and discovered evidence linking Coolidge to the murder. State courts rejected Coolidge’s claim that the search violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

In an opinion written by Justice Potter Stewart, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution prohibits the issuance of a warrant except where probable cause has been found by a ‘‘neutral and detached magistrate’’ who independently assessed the evidence collected by the police. InCoolidge, the chief investigator/prosecutor in this case was not sufficiently ‘‘neutral and detached.’’ Only a plurality of the Court, however, found that the search did not fall under any of the exceptions to the warrant requirement and that the evidence against Coolidge should have been suppressed.

Coolidge affirms the principle that the Fourth Amendment serves as a check on the power of police to search and seize property without a prior, independent assessment by a neutral state official.

LARRY CUNNINGHAM

References and Further Reading

  • LaFave, Wayne R. ‘‘The ’Neutral and Detached Magistrate’ Requirement.’’ Sec. 4.2 of Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment. Vol. 2. 4th ed. St. Paul: Thomson/West, 2004.

See also Probable Cause; Search (General Definition); Search Warrants; Stewart, Potter; Warrant Clause; Warrantless Searches Jr., of the crime. The police presented their evidence to the State Attorney General who supervised the investigation and who would later serve as chief prosecutor at Coolidge’s trial. Acting in his capacity as a justice of the peace under New Hampshire law, the Attorney General issued a search warrant for Coolidge’s car. The police impounded the car, vacuumed its carpet, and discovered evidence linking Coolidge to the murder. State courts rejected Coolidge’s claim that the search violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. In an opinion written by Justice Potter Stewart, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution prohibits the issuance of a warrant except where probable cause has been found by a ‘‘neutral and detached magistrate’’ who independently assessed the evidence collected by the police. InCoolidge, the chief investigator/prosecutor in this case was not sufficiently ‘‘neutral and detached.’’ Only a plurality of the Court, however, found that the search did not fall under any of the exceptions to the warrant requirement and that the evidence against Coolidge should have been suppressed. Coolidge affirms the principle that the Fourth Amendment serves as a check on the power of police to search and seize property without a prior, independent assessment by a neutral state official. LARRY CUNNINGHAM References and Further Reading LaFave, Wayne R. ‘‘The ’Neutral and Detached Magistrate’ Requirement.’’ Sec. 4.2 of Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment. Vol. 2. 4th ed. St. Paul: Thomson/West, 2004. See also Probable Cause; Search (General Definition); Search Warrants; Stewart, Potter; Warrant Clause; Warrantless Searches