Coolidge v. New Hampshire Case Quiz

Coolidge v. New Hampshire

• In Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that a warrantless search and seizure of the defendant's automobile violated the Fourth Amendment
• The warrant was issued by the Attorney General, who also was in charge of the investigation, creating a conflict of interest
• The Court determined that the warrant was not issued by a neutral and detached magistrate, as required by the Fourth Amendment
• The Court cited the basic constitutional rule that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by a judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment
• The Court also discussed the "Plainview Doctrine," which allows police to seize evidence in plain view without a warrant, but only when the discovery of the evidence is inadvertent
• In this case, the discovery of the guns in Coolidge's car was not inadvertent because the police had ample opportunity to obtain a valid warrant beforehand

Keyword Search Warrants

• The text mentions a case currently pending before the Colorado Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of "keyword search warrants"
• Keyword warrants are different from traditional warrants because they seek data belonging to a suspect, instead searching everyone first and identifying suspects later
• The defense argues that Google must search billions of users to respond to these warrants, raising privacy implications

Fourth Amendment Implications of Technology

• The text discusses the implications of new technologies, such as self-driving cars equipped with cameras, for law enforcement and privacy
• The author raises questions about whether law enforcement should have access to cell phone tracking data and how technology companies should cooperate with law enforcement requests
• The text highlights the need for ongoing legal discussions about the balance between law enforcement needs and privacy concerns in the digital age
• The author emphasizes that existing legal frameworks may need to be reconsidered to address these issues
• The text mentions examples of law enforcement utilizing video footage from self-driving cars in San Francisco and Phoenix

Horton v. California

• In Horton v. California (1990), the Supreme Court refined the Plainview Doctrine, ruling that the warrantless seizure of evidence in plain view does not violate the Fourth Amendment even if the discovery of such evidence was not inadvertent
• This decision broadened the scope of the Plainview Doctrine, allowing police to seize evidence in plain view without a warrant in a wider range of circumstances.