Supreme Court Issues: The Mapp V. Ohio Case

Mapp V Ohio “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,” Mapp V. Ohio (1961) dealt with that very sentence of the constitution. Were the officers at fault or Mapp? This complex question has a complex answer one that puzzled the Supreme Court and led to a change in criminal procedure. The verdict was a strict interpretation of the constitution. The fourth amendment was relevant because the fourteenth amendment grunted due process. It was a very good decision, it protected the black minority who at the time were being routinely harassed and convicted for no reasons. This decision certainly did not stop that but it made it harder
The land mark Supreme Court ruling on Mapp v Ohio changed the way people thought of the fourth amendment and how it could be applied to protect the individual form unlawful search and seizure. Previously the law surrounding the fourth amendment’s protection from unjust searches was extremely enigmatic. Its application varied form case to case until the Weeks rule was enacted in 1914. The Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained via an illegal search and seizure was not admissible in federal court. However the Supreme Court did not make the states adopt the Weeks rule. The legal loop hole it created made it legal for states to present and prosecute with evidence detained in an unconstitutional tactic. In Mapp v Ohio a case that brought all the questions into the spotlight. On May 23, 1957, three Cleveland police officers arrived at appellant's residence in that city perusing information that "a person [was] hiding out in the home, who was wanted for questioning in connection with a recent bombing, and that there was a large amount of policy paraphernalia being hidden in the home." Ms. Mapp was living with her daughter when the police officers arrived and demanded entrance to her home. After consulting her attorney she did
The fourth amendment gives the people the right to privacy and protects them from unlawful searches and seizures. When the Warren court ruled in favor of Mapp, Justice Clark cited two constitutional amendments that protected Ms. Mapp. "Since the Fourth Amendment's right of privacy has been declared enforceable against the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth, it is enforceable against them by the same sanction of exclusion as is used against the Federal Government." He reasoned that because the states had to abide by the fourth amendment’s right to privacy then the exclusionary rule should also be applied to state courts. Clark also addressed the concern of letting a criminal go when he or she is legally not guilty because of the excusatory rule, "it is the law that sets him free" and that "nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws." The law must be observed in all instances where it is