Case law · Highest court · Federal

Coolidge v. New Hampshire

Decided
June 21, 1971
Docket
323
Status
Published
Jurisdiction
Federal

Cited 9,038 timesOverruled in part (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: overruled in part, overruled on other grounds, abrogated in part on other grounds, receded, disapproved on other grounds, overruled in part on other grounds, abrogated on other grounds, abrogated in part (not yet verified) · United States v. Yu

What later courts said

  • holding that a warrant issued by the state Attorney General who prosecuted the defendant was invalid — United States v. Min Yoon (2005)
  • holding that the Fourth Amendment "requir[es] a 'particular description’ of the thing to be seized" — Anzualda v. Commonwealth (2005)
  • holding that the Fourth Amendment "requir[es] a `particular description' of the thing to be seized" — Anzualda v. Commonwealth (2005)

Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.

How the opinion begins

Mb. Justice Stewart delivered the opinion of the Court.[*] 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, 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 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.

Cite this

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

Read the full opinion

Free account needed

Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.