Connally v. Georgia
Citation and Court
429 U.S. 245 (1977) — Supreme Court of the United States
Facts
Georgia law authorized unsalaried justices of the peace to issue search warrants. The justices of the peace received a $5 fee for each warrant they issued but nothing for declining to issue one. A warrant to search for marijuana was issued under this scheme, and Connally challenged whether the warrant was issued by a neutral and detached magistrate as required by the Fourth Amendment.
Issue
Does the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of a neutral and detached magistrate prohibit the issuance of search warrants by a justice of the peace who receives a fee only when he issues a warrant and nothing when he does not?
Holding
Yes; a justice of the peace who has a financial incentive to issue warrants and no incentive to refuse them is not a neutral and detached magistrate, and warrants issued by such an official violate the Fourth Amendment.
Rule / Doctrine
The Fourth Amendment requires that warrants be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate. An official who has a pecuniary interest in finding probable cause—by receiving a fee for each warrant issued—lacks the neutrality the Constitution demands. Warrants issued by such a magistrate are constitutionally defective.
Significance
Connally v. Georgia illustrates the Fourth Amendment’s structural requirement that the warrant-issuing magistrate be truly independent and disinterested. It stands alongside Coolidge v. New Hampshire (attorney general is not neutral) as a case defining who qualifies as a “neutral and detached magistrate.”