Coolidge v. New Hampshire
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
Texas v. Brown and Lowe v. Caldwell criticized aspects of Coolidge, and State v. Bock declined to carry its physical-search rationale into digital searches under Oregon's constitution. The other opinions applied or distinguished Coolidge, directed nearby adverse language at other authorities, reported Horton's act, or discussed noncontrolling separate opinions. A Massachusetts concurrence's criticism is not listed as treatment by that court.
8,957 later cases cite Coolidge v. New Hampshire; 228 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Coolidge v. New Hampshire?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Abrogated
-
The Supreme Court rejected the Coolidge plurality's inadvertence requirement and held that inadvertent discovery is not necessary for a valid plain-view seizure.
Horton v. California · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
In this case we revisit an issue that was considered, but not conclusively resolved, in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443 (1971): Whether the warrantless seizure of evidence of crime in plain view is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment if the discovery of the evidence was not inadvertent. We conclude that even though inadvertence is a characteristic of most legitimate “plain-view” seizures, it is not a necessary condition.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Declined to Follow
-
The Oregon Court of Appeals declined to carry Coolidge's physical-search rationale wholesale into digital searches under Oregon's constitution.
State v. Bock · Oregon Court of Appeals · filed
Although the rationale in Coolidge and subsequent cases holds up in the context of physical searches, it falters when uprooted and applied wholesale to digital searches, which, as Mansor recognized, require greater scrutiny to protect privacy interests.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Criticized
-
The district court criticized Coolidge as analytically tangled and confusing.
Lowe v. Caldwell · S.D. Ga. · filed
Some of the decisions (Coolidge, included) are a farrago of analysis of other cases, analogy, distinction, discerption, antino-my and doctrinal dichotomy and trichot-omy.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
A Supreme Court plurality criticized Coolidge's “immediately apparent” formulation as nonbinding and potentially suggesting too high a certainty threshold for plain-view seizures.
Texas v. Brown · Supreme Court of the United States (plurality) · filed
While the lower courts generally have applied the Coolidge plurality’s discussion of “plain view,” it has never been expressly adopted by a majority of this Court. ... Decisions by this Court since Coolidge indicate that the use of the phrase “immediately apparent” was very likely an unhappy choice of words, since it can be taken to imply that an unduly high degree of certainty as to the incriminatory character of evidence is necessary for an application of the “plain view” doctrine.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Coolidge v. New Hampshire and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace