It was actually a very interesting case. Long story short, a man named Edward Coolidge was suspected and eventually charged with killing a 14 year female named Pamela Mason. Edward was questioned and cooperatively agreed to take a lie detector test and even showed the officers three different guns that he owned. The lie detector was inconclusive, but he did however admit of committing theft. Two different officers decided to visit the home while Coolidge wasn’t there to confirm his story with the wife. The wife during the questioning displayed four guns and some clothing Coolidge was wearing during the days the victim Mason was missing. The police provided all the evidence to the state attorney general in order to get a warrant to arrest Coolidge at his home, in which the state attorney agreed to do so (“Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971),” n.d.).
The police arrived at the house days later with …show more content…
The United States Supreme Court denied that also. It was mentioned that plain view is not reasonable enough because evidence has to be discovered inadvertently. To further explain, the police had more than enough time and opportunities to acquire a valid warrant. The police knew all the information in advance about the suspect’s home, vehicle and the suspect. Most importantly, there was nothing dangerous inside the vehicle or contraband inside (“Coolidge v. New Hampshire 403 U.S. 443 (1971),” n.d.).
It’s an odd case if you ask me. My only issue was that the attorney general obtained the warrant, which was the same guy in charge of the criminal prosecution and the investigation. That doesn’t seem fair to me. However, the vehicle situation is a little bit ridiculous and quite a stretch if you ask me. It must be difficult for Supreme Court justice’s to look in the eye of a criminal and release him afterward over minor errors conducted by the police (“Coolidge v. New Hampshire 403 U.S. 443 (1971),”
The police arrived at the house days later with …show more content…
The United States Supreme Court denied that also. It was mentioned that plain view is not reasonable enough because evidence has to be discovered inadvertently. To further explain, the police had more than enough time and opportunities to acquire a valid warrant. The police knew all the information in advance about the suspect’s home, vehicle and the suspect. Most importantly, there was nothing dangerous inside the vehicle or contraband inside (“Coolidge v. New Hampshire 403 U.S. 443 (1971),” n.d.).
It’s an odd case if you ask me. My only issue was that the attorney general obtained the warrant, which was the same guy in charge of the criminal prosecution and the investigation. That doesn’t seem fair to me. However, the vehicle situation is a little bit ridiculous and quite a stretch if you ask me. It must be difficult for Supreme Court justice’s to look in the eye of a criminal and release him afterward over minor errors conducted by the police (“Coolidge v. New Hampshire 403 U.S. 443 (1971),”