Case Study
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1991)
Facts: Police received information that a bombing suspect and evidence of bombing were at Ms. Mapp’s home. Ms. Mapp refused to admit the police officers after calling her attorney and being instructed that they should have a warrant. After an unsuccessful initial attempt to gain entrance into her home, the police returned and pried open the door and broke a window to gain entrance. Ms. Mapp was only halfway down the stairs by time the officers had entered her dwelling. She requested to see their warrant and a ‘warrant’ was shown to her. She grabbed the ‘warrant’ and held it to her chest. A struggle ensued and Ms. Mapp was handcuffed for being ‘belligerent.’ Ms. Mapp’s attorney arrived and was not permitted to see her or enter the home. The officers conducted a search of the home and obscene materials were discovered. Ms. Mapp was tried and convicted for her possession of these materials.
Issue: Whether or not evidence discovered during a search and seizure conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment should be admissible in a state court?
Rules: All evidence discovered as a result of a search and seizure conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in court.
Analysis: Justice Clark filed the majority opinion saying: That the exclusionary rule applies to all evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s search and seizure clause in all state prosecutions. Since the Fourth Amendment’s right of privacy has been declared to be enforceable against the state through the Due Process Clause, the same sanctions are also enforceable against them. The purpose of the rule is to deter illegally obtained evidence and to compel respect for the Constitution. A state by admitting illegally obtained evidence disobeys the Constitution that it has sworn to uphold. A federal prosecutor may not make use of illegally obtained evidence, but a state prosecutor across the street may, even though they
Facts: Police received information that a bombing suspect and evidence of bombing were at Ms. Mapp’s home. Ms. Mapp refused to admit the police officers after calling her attorney and being instructed that they should have a warrant. After an unsuccessful initial attempt to gain entrance into her home, the police returned and pried open the door and broke a window to gain entrance. Ms. Mapp was only halfway down the stairs by time the officers had entered her dwelling. She requested to see their warrant and a ‘warrant’ was shown to her. She grabbed the ‘warrant’ and held it to her chest. A struggle ensued and Ms. Mapp was handcuffed for being ‘belligerent.’ Ms. Mapp’s attorney arrived and was not permitted to see her or enter the home. The officers conducted a search of the home and obscene materials were discovered. Ms. Mapp was tried and convicted for her possession of these materials.
Issue: Whether or not evidence discovered during a search and seizure conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment should be admissible in a state court?
Rules: All evidence discovered as a result of a search and seizure conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in court.
Analysis: Justice Clark filed the majority opinion saying: That the exclusionary rule applies to all evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s search and seizure clause in all state prosecutions. Since the Fourth Amendment’s right of privacy has been declared to be enforceable against the state through the Due Process Clause, the same sanctions are also enforceable against them. The purpose of the rule is to deter illegally obtained evidence and to compel respect for the Constitution. A state by admitting illegally obtained evidence disobeys the Constitution that it has sworn to uphold. A federal prosecutor may not make use of illegally obtained evidence, but a state prosecutor across the street may, even though they