Code of Criminal Procedure · U.S. Supreme Court, 1971

Coolidge v. New Hampshire

Coolidge v. New Hampshire is a 1971 U.S. Supreme Court decision. This page summarizes key points and works through practice questions for Texas peace officer exam preparation.

Key points

  • Plain view (Coolidge plurality, as restated in Horton v. California, 1990):
  • Officer lawfully at the vantage point (e.g., executing a valid warrant)
  • Incriminating character immediately apparent (probable cause)
  • Lawful right of access to the item; inadvertence is not required (Horton)

Learn more about this topic

Time yourself, score your run, review missed questions with statute references — Free Practice Pass cadets get limited access.

Start Free Practice

Worked examples

Worked example 1

SCENARIO. Officers obtain a search warrant for narcotics at a residence. While executing it, they find an unsecured handgun on the kitchen table. The defendant is a felon. May they seize the firearm?

  1. No — the warrant only authorizes narcotics seizure
  2. Yes, under the plain view doctrine — the officers were lawfully present, the criminal nature was immediately apparent (felon in possession), and access was lawful Correct
  3. No — they need a separate warrant
  4. Only if the firearm is loaded
Why: Officers lawfully present executing a valid warrant may seize items in plain view whose incriminating character is immediately apparent and to which they have lawful access (Coolidge plurality, as restated in Horton v. California, which dropped any inadvertence requirement). A felon's possession of a firearm is a crime in itself, so the firearm is properly seized.
Statute: Plain view doctrine; Coolidge v. New Hampshire; Horton v. California; Art. 18.02
Worked example 2

Under the plain view doctrine, an officer may seize an object without a warrant when:

  1. The object is on the suspect's person
  2. The officer is lawfully present, the criminal nature of the object is immediately apparent, and the officer has lawful access to the object Correct
  3. The officer is in a public place
  4. The object is more than $100 in value
Why: Plain view requires (1) lawful presence at the vantage point, (2) immediately apparent criminal nature (probable cause that the item is contraband or evidence), and (3) a lawful right of access to the item. These elements come from the Coolidge plurality as restated in Horton v. California (1990); inadvertent discovery is not required.
Statute: Coolidge v. New Hampshire; Horton v. California