Coolidge v. N.H.
Supreme Court of the United States
January 12, 1971, Argued ; June 21, 1971, Decided
[*445] [***570] [**2027] MR. JUSTICE STEWART delivered the opinion of the Court.
[****6] We are called upon in this case to decide issues under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments arising in the context of a state criminal trial for the commission of a particularly brutal murder. As in every case, our single duty is to determine the issues presented in accord with the Constitution and the law.
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, [***571] 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.
On January 28, having learned from a neighbor 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. They asked [*446] him, among other things, if he owned any guns, and he produced three, two shotguns and a rifle. They also asked whether he would take a lie-detector test concerning his account of his activities on the night [****7] of the disappearance. He agreed to do so on the following Sunday, his day off. The police later described his attitude on the occasion of this visit as fully "cooperative." His wife was in the house throughout the interview.
On the following Sunday, a policeman called Coolidge early in the morning and asked him to come down to the police station for the trip to Concord, New Hampshire, where the lie-detector test was to be administered. That evening, two plainclothes policemen arrived at the Coolidge house, where Mrs. Coolidge was waiting with her mother-in-law for her husband's return. These two policemen were not the two who had visited the house earlier in the week, and they apparently did not know that Coolidge had displayed three guns for inspection during the earlier visit. The plainclothesmen told Mrs. Coolidge that her husband was in "serious trouble" and probably would not be home that night. They asked Coolidge's mother to leave, and proceeded to question Mrs. Coolidge. During the course of the interview they obtained from her four guns belonging to Coolidge, and some clothes that Mrs. Coolidge thought her husband might have been wearing on the evening of Pamela Mason's [****8] disappearance.Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
403 U.S. 443 *; 91 S. Ct. 2022 **; 29 L. Ed. 2d 564 ***; 1971 U.S. LEXIS 25 ****
COOLIDGE v. NEW HAMPSHIRE
Prior History: [****1] CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE.
Disposition: 109 N. H. 403, 260 A. 2d 547, reversed and remanded.
arrest, seized, seizure, fourth amendment, searches, probable cause, plain view, cases, search warrant, contraband, intrusion, inadvertent, circumstances, night, exigent circumstances, effects, Cooper, search and seizure, warrantless search, exclusionary rule, premises, murder, warrant requirement, rifle, guns, warrantless seizure, police station, discovery, invalid, marihuana
Constitutional Law, Fundamental Rights, Search & Seizure, Probable Cause, Criminal Law & Procedure, Warrantless Searches, General Overview, Scope of Protection, Search Warrants, Probable Cause, Sensory Perceptions, Exigent Circumstances, Trials, Burdens of Proof, Search Incident to Lawful Arrest, Extent & Manner of Search, Necessity That Arrest Be Valid, Proximity of Search to Arrest, Vehicle Searches, Reasonable & Prudent Standard, Vehicle Searches, Plain View Doctrine, Plain View, Hot Pursuit, Exigent Circumstances, Exclusionary Rule, Exceptions to Exclusionary Rule, Warrants, Scope of Search Warrants, Seizure of Things, Protection of Officers & Others