# Coolidge v. New Hampshire > Supreme Court of the United States · June 21, 1971 · 403 U.S. 443 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9424645 ## Case - **Full name:** Coolidge v. New Hampshire - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** June 21, 1971 - **Citations:** 403 U.S. 443; 91 S. Ct. 2022; 29 L. Ed. 2d 564; 1971 U.S. LEXIS 25 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Burger - **Judges:** Hablan, Stewart, Burger, Ii-D, Douglas, Brennan, Marshall, Harlan, Black, Burgee, Blackmun, White - **Cited by:** 7,534 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - **Yellow flag:** Reported overruled in part, on other grounds by Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) — not on the Supreme Court's list. - Negative treatments: 7 - Distinguished by: 17 - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9424645 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - recognizing that "[p]lainly, the [United States Supreme] Court d[oes] not view the 'immediately apparent' language . . . as establishing any requirement that a police officer 'know' that certain items are contraband or evidence of a crime," but rather "that '[t]he seizure of p… - explaining that “[b]oth sides to the controversy” over the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement “appear to recognize a distinction between searches and seizures that take place on a man’s property . . . and those carried out elsewhere. It is accepted . . . that a search or s… - explaining that examples of general search warrants are those authorizing searches for and seizures of such vague categories of items as " 'smuggled goods,' " " 'obscene materials,' " " 'books, records, pamphlets, cards, receipts, lists, memoranda, pictures, recordings and oth… - concluding that if the Court were to hold the automobile exception applies to a vehicle parked in a residential driveway “where there was no stopping and the vehicle was unoccupied ... it is but a short step to the .position that it is never necessary for the police to obtain … - stating that " 'exigent circumstances’ justify the warrantless search of ‘an automobile stopped on the highway,’ where there is probable cause, because the car is 'movable, the occupants are alerted, and the car’s contents may never be found again if a warrant must be obtained… ## Opinion text Mr. Chief Justice Burger, dissenting in. part and concurring in part. I join the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice White and in Parts II and III of Mr. Justice Black’s concurring and dissenting opinion. I also agree with most of what is said in Part I of Mr. Justice Black’s opinion, but I am not prepared to accept the proposition that the Fifth Amendment requires the exclusion of evidence *493 seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment. I join in Part III of Mr. Justice Stewart’s opinion. This case illustrates graphically the monstrous price we pay for the exclusionary rule in which we seem to have imprisoned ourselves. See my dissent in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, ante, p. 411. On the merits of the case I find not the slightest basis in the record to reverse this conviction. Here again the Court reaches out, strains, and distorts rules that were showing some signs of stabilizing, and directs a new trial which will be held more than seven years after the criminal acts charged. Mr. Justice Stone, of the Minnesota Supreme Court, called the kind of judicial functioning in which the Court indulges today “bifurcating elements too infinitesimal to be split.” --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9424645. Public record. Not legal advice.