Final answer:
Warrants are preferred in the case of Coolidge v New Hampshire for two reasons: they provide a legal basis for searches or seizures and establish limitations on the scope of the search or seizure.
Step-by-step explanation:
The case of Coolidge v New Hampshire involves the issue of warrants. There are two main reasons why warrants are preferred in this case. First, warrants provide a legal basis for conducting searches or seizures, ensuring that law enforcement officers have probable cause and preventing arbitrary invasions of privacy. Second, warrants establish a clear framework and set limitations on the scope of the search or seizure, protecting individuals from unreasonable government intrusion.