In the 1970 case Coolidge v. New Hampshire, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained through an unlawful search and seizure could not be used in court, reinforcing the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement officials. The case involved Edward Coolidge who was convicted for murder based on evidence collected without a proper warrant from his house and car. The police had obtained a warrant but it was deemed invalid because it wasn't issued by a "neutral and detached magistrate" as required by law; instead, it was authorized directly by the state's attorney general who was actively involved in investigating this particular case. Furthermore, they seized his car while parked at his home without any exigent circumstances to justify such action under 'automobile exception'. Therefore, both these actions violated Fourth Amendment protections leading to reversal of conviction.

In the dissenting opinion for Coolidge v. New Hampshire, Justice Black disagreed with the majority's decision to suppress evidence obtained during a warrantless search of an automobile parked in a driveway. He argued that this interpretation of the Fourth Amendment was too broad and would hinder law enforcement efforts. Furthermore, he contended that there were no grounds to believe that police acted unreasonably or in bad faith when they seized evidence from Coolidge’s car without first obtaining a warrant. The justice also took issue with the majority's ruling on whether Mrs. Coolidge voluntarily consented to police searching her home, arguing it should be left up to state courts rather than federal ones to determine voluntariness under their own laws and procedures.