Coolidge v. New Hampshire:   
United States Supreme Court, 1979. 

Statement of the Case:

      Coolidge, convicted murderer of babysitter girl, argues that a warrantless search of his house and car violates the 4^th amendment when there was no house warrant and the automobile warrant was issued by the Attorney General.

Procedure:

      Lower courts allowed the search.

Facts:

        Young babysitting girl called by Coolidge during a snowstorm.  She was found dead 8 days later.  Police questioned Coolidge, he produced guns and agreed to a lie-detector test.  On the date of the test, he did not show up, and officers came to his house.  The officers told the wife he would not be home and was in trouble.  They asked her for his guns and clothes he may have been wearing.

      They got a search warrant for the house and car from the Attorney General, and impounded the car, also kicking the wife out of the house.  They kept and searched the car over the course of the year.  The officers found a little gun residue in the car.

Issue:

      Whether the police could take the ?’s car and search it at the station whenever they felt like it, when the warrant was merely for a search of the car.

Procedural Result:

      Reversed for D.

Holding:

      The police could not legally seize the car, remove it, and search it at their leisure without a warrant to authorizing this.

Reasoning:

• The word “automobile” is not a talisman in whose presence the 4^th Amendment fades away and disappears.
• Chambers:  Warrantless searches of a car are acceptable when they are of an automobile stopped on the highway, and exigent circumstances exist.
• The police could not legally seize the car, remove it, and search it at their leisure without a warrant to authorizing this.

Dissent:

• The only reason that the case should be reversed is because of the long time the car was detained, not because the officers can not do whatever they want with a car.

Additional Points:

• Cardwell v. Lewis:  Plurality stated that cars are more protected on private property.
• United States v. Johns:  Court refused to place a time limit on what is reasonable or excessive.