Coolidge v.
New Hampshire Pontiac two-door sedan) a few hours after they arrested Coolidge
403 U.S. 443 (1971)
Nature of the Case: In plain sight
Petitioners: Edward H. Coolidge, Jr.
Respondents: State of New Hampshire
Background: 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.
Doctrine: An item of evidence discovered in plain view could not be
considered as such unless it was discovered while the search was in
progress--and the discovery itself must be considered inadvertent.
Facts:
1. Pamela Mason, a 14-year-old girl, left her home in Manchester, New
Hampshire, on the evening of January 13, 1964, during a heavy
snowstorm, apparently in response to a man's telephone call for a
babysitter. Eight days later, after a thaw, her body was found by the
side of a major north-south highway several miles away. She had
been murdered. The event created great alarm in the area, and the
police immediately began a massive investigation.
2. On January 28, having learned from a neighbour that the petitioner,
Edward Coolidge, had been away from home on the evening of the
girl's disappearance, the police went to his house to question him.
3. Police investigation revealed that Edward Coolidge's automobile
had been observed stopped alongside the highway where the girl's
body was discovered. Upon this information, the police secured an
automobile search warrant and then seized the vehicle (1951
inside his home.
4. The vehicle was searched three times-two days, eleven months,
and fourteen months later-and vacuumed for possible evidence.
The vacuum sweepings were introduced at trial. Also introduced
against Coolidge were guns and clothing he owned which his wife
had voluntarily given the police. The Court quickly dismissed the
contention that the latter evidence had been obtained illegally,
holding that good faith efforts of a wife could not be construed as a
search and seizure under the fourth amendment.
Issues: WON the warrant was valid and if the officers seized the car (1951
Pontiac two-door sedan) of Coolidge only after they observed it in plain
view before them
Held: NO.
The state of New Hampshire developed three theories in an attempt to
explain the warrant's validity, or at least to cover the legal issues involving a
warrantless search. The first theory stated that the search and seizure of
Coolidge's automobile were "incident" to the arrest. In order for this to have
been the case, it would have been necessary for Coolidge to be in
possession or control of the vehicle.
The second theory postulated by the state maintained that probable cause
allowed for a warrantless search of an automobile. As stated in previous
cases (primarily involving the transportation of contraband), there was a
considerable difference between the search of a house or a store and the
search of a vehicle simply because a vehicle could be moved out of the
jurisdiction covered by a specific warrant. However, it was deemed that this
"automobile exception" was not applicable to the Coolidge case. Coolidge
was arrested without resistance in his own house; the car remained
untouched throughout this event, as he made no attempt to escape. Since
the police had suspected the role of the car in the crime for some time, it
became apparent that the warrantless search was illegal due to the lack of
exigent circumstances.
The state's final theory supporting a warrantless seizure and search relied
on the Pontiac as being an "instrumentality of the crime" that could be
seized because it was in plain view. However, an item of evidence
discovered in plain view could not be considered as such unless it was
discovered while the search was in progress--and the discovery itself must
be considered inadvertent. The Supreme Court rightly believed that the
police had a sufficient amount of time in which to obtain a valid warrant as
the description and the location of the Pontiac were known in advance of
the arrest.

None of these theories validated the warrant provided by the state

attorney general; nor did they justify a warrantless search. It was found
that the seizure and subsequent search of Coolidge's automobile was
unconstitutional. As the evidence obtained in this search was permitted at
the murder trial, the U.S. Supreme Court deemed that the judgement of
this trial must be reversed and remanded the case to the New Hampshire
Supreme Court.

In the case before us, the officers had probable cause both to arrest
Coolidge and to seize his car. In order to effect his arrest, they went to his
home - perhaps the most obvious place in which to look for him. They also
may have hoped to find his car at home and, in fact, when they arrived on
the property to make the arrest, they did find the 1951 Pontiac there. Thus,
even assuming that the Fourth Amendment protects against warrantless
seizures outside the house, but see Hester v. United States, supra, at 59, the
fact remains that the officers had legally entered Coolidge's property to
effect an arrest and that they seized the car only after they observed it in
plain view before them. The Court, however, would invalidate this seizure
on the premise that officers should not be permitted to seize effects in
plain sight when they have anticipated they will see them.