The Fourth Amendment: Coolidge vs New Hampshire - Term Paper Example

The Fourth Amendment: Coolidge vs New Hampshire The fourth amendment to the constitution of United States is part of the bill of rights that protects citizens against irrational or unreasonable searches and seizures, along with demanding any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and endorsed by probable cause. This clause was adopted as a reaction to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a kind of general search warrant. Search and warrant should be limited and adhering to specific data or information given to the issuing court normally by law enforcement officer. Coolidge, a convicted murderer of a girl, argues that a warrantless search of his automobile and house violates the fourth amendment when there was absence of house warrant and that the car warrant was issued by the Attorney General who was not neutral. This case was about a girl who left home in response to a call for a babysitter. After 8 days, she was found dead. Neighbors reported to the police that Coolidge was out at the time the murder took place. Police went to Coolidge house to question him about the murder. In the course of their questioning, he produced three guns and consented to take a lie detector test. This test included the murder, but, during the process, Coolidge admitted of theft. In his absence, two other police officers came to his house and questioned his wife regarding the murder and collaborate his acceptance of theft. Unaware of other police officers who had been shown the guns and having little information about the murder weapon, the police officers asked about any gun that might be in the house and they were shown four guns which she gave to the officers. One police officer declined the offer, but, they took the guns along with other documents and clothes belonging to Coolidge. On February 19, Coolidge was arrested in his house for being responsible for the murder of the girl and on that date, a warrant to search his house and car was applied by the police and was given or issued by the Attorney General (who has assumed charge of inquiry or investigation and was later the prosecutor at the trial) acting as justice of the peace (Hubbart 67-71). The automobile which at the moment of arrest was parked in Coolidge’s driveway was moved to the police station, where it was searched. Residue from the car sweepings and clothing were applied as evidence at the trial, along with the gun that Coolidge’s wife gave the police officers. They kept and searched the car for more than one year and were successful in finding a little gun residue in the car. Coolidge was convicted of murder by State Supreme Court. The courts decisions on the case The State Supreme Court held that the warrant for the seizure and search of Coolidge’s car did not meet the requirements of the fourth amendment as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth since it was not given or issued by a detached and neutral magistrate. The US constitution stipulates that searches done outside the judicial process without prior approval by the Supreme judge or magistrate are irrational according to the Fourth amendment only applicable to a few specific and well defined exceptions (Lee 44-46). Basing on the facts of this case, warrantless seizure and search of the car are not reasonable under those exceptions. The seizure of the automobile in the parking cannot be justified as incidental to Coolidge’s arrest, which happened inside the house. Assuming that the police could have properly made warrantless search of the car in the parking lot when they arrested Coolidge, they could not have done so at their own pleasure after its removal. With regards to this case, where the police had the knowledge of the probable role of the automobile in the crime, Coolidge had enough opportunity to destroy incriminating evidence, the house was protected at the moment for arrest and that Coolidge had no access to the automobile. The Court stated that there were exigent scenarios justifying warrantless search even had been provided before the police took the car to the police station. The courts differed on this matter in that some thought it was justifiable by arguing that the police may, without a warrant seize evidence in plain view and when they discover that evidence is inadvertent. While other courts held that it was unacceptable according to the fourth amendment of exceptional provision. There was seizure and search implicated when the police visited Coolidge’s house and obtained clothing and guns from his wife and hence they needed no warrant to do so. The police did not force her to produce the guns and clothes and in giving these items to the police officer, Coolidge’s wife did not act as agents of the police. The court believed that there was enough evidence to sentence Coolidge to prison for the murder. The courts differed on the ruling stating that the warrant authorizing for the search and seizure of Coolidge’s car was not valid because it was not issued by neutral and detached magistrate. Therefore, they hold that because the warrant search was invalid, it was good if the Court considered further arguments that the allegations under the oath justifying the issuance of the warrant were so conclusory in order to violate relevant constitutional standards under the fourth amendment (Clancy 41-43). The matter of fourth amendment which is not understood by zealous officers is not that it hinders enforcement of law, but, the endorsement of the usual inferences which rational men get evidence. Its guard comprises in demanding that those inferences be drawn or made by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by a justice involved in the often competitive activity of ferreting out crime. Any assumption that available evidence is sufficient to support a judge or magistrate disinterested determination to give or issue a search and seizure warrant will justify the police officers in conducting the search without a warrant would reduce the amendment to nullity and leave people secure in the discretion of police men. However, the right of privacy is essential and must rationally yield to the right of search and seizure as a rule of law in the constitution to be decide by a judicial personnel not a police man as in this case of Coolidge Vs. New Hampshire. The government enforcement agent “the Attorney General” was responsible for determination of probable cause in this case. The attorney was actively in charge of the investigation and chief prosecutor at the trial (Rago 88-93). The New Hampshire Supreme court in justifying the conviction depended much on the theory that, even if the warrant process and procedure here in question or issue would violate the standards imposed on the Federal government by the fourth amendment. They endorsed their decision to convict Coolidge despite differing opinions on the case. Summarily, the probable cause, warrantless arrests may not be provided in the home where there is lack of exigent circumstances. It is vital that the person issuing the search and seizure warrant be neutral and detached to avoid infringement on people’s life. In addition, the court has held that not all probable cause arrests without warrant in home must be supported by exigent circumstances other the necessity of arresting a robber. Therefore, in this case, where some justices chose to dissent and concur in part, the court stated that the searches and seizures of Coolidge’s house and car were unconstitutional. Judge Steward argued that the warrant authorizing the seizure of Coolidge’s car was invalid since it was not given by a neutral and detached magistrate. In addition, he rejected New Hampshire’s arguments in favor of providing an exception to the warrant requirements. He justified his rejection by stating that neither the plain view nor incident to arrest justified the search and that the car exception was not applicable. On the other hand, the court held that, although automobile exception exists, the word automobile is not an object in whose present the fourth amendment disappears. Works Cited Clancy, Thomas. The Fourth Amendment: Its History and Interpretation. Carolina: Carolina Academic Press, 2008. Print. Hubbart, Philip. Making Sense of Search and Seizure Law: A Fourth Amendment Handbook. Carolina: Carolina Academic Press, 2008. Print. Lee, Cynthia. Searches and Seizures: The Fourth Amendment: Its Constitutional History and Contemporary Debate. New York: Prometheus Books, 2010. Print. Rago, John. Forensic Science and Law: Investigative Applications in Criminal, Civil and Family Justice. Washington, DC: CRC Press, 2005. Print. Read More