Legal Brief Essay
Citation: Mapp v. Ohio, No. 236, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 367 U. S. 643; 81 S. Ct. 1684; 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081; 1961 U. S. LEXIS 812; 86 Ohio L. Abs. 513; 16 Ohio Op. 2d 384; 84 A. L. R. 2d 933, March 29, 1961, Argued, June 19, 1961, Decided.
Facts: Police officers of the Cleveland Police Department arrived to Dollree Mapp’s house without a search warrant on May 3, 1957 demanding her open the door and thinking that she and her daughter were harboring a suspected bombing fugitive according to the information they had. Miss Mapp immediately called her attorney and under his professional advice she refused to open the door for them without a warrant. Some hours later more police officers arrived to her house and, while D. Mapp was on the upper floor of the two-family dwelling, they illegally entered the building. During the warrantless search of her house, in which police officers were hoping to find a suspected bombing fugitive, in the basement police they found a trunk containing “lewd and lascivious” books, pictures, and photographs that violated Ohio obscenity laws. Mapp stated that the trunk was left in the basement by previous tenant and she was not aware of its contents. No fugitive or even any evidence of one was ever found at the house. But Mapp was still arrested by police for violating Ohio obscenity laws.
Issue: Whether evidence obtained by law enforcement bodies illegally without an official warrant and probable cause can be admissible or not during the state criminal prosecution.
Previous History: Mapp had been convicted by the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Ohio. At the trial police could not present any official warrant regarding this criminal case. On appeal, the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed decision of the lower court.
Holding: The Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth, excludes unconstitutionally obtained evidence from use in criminal prosecutions.
Reasoning: Even after its ratification in 1791 the Fourth Amendment was of little value and use to criminal trial because evidence gathered by law enforcement bodies without a warrant and probable cause was still admissible during the defendant’s prosecution. This situation had been dramatically changed by the Supreme Court in its decision in Week v. United States case in 1914. The Supreme Court created the exclusionary rule, which forbids evidence gathered illegally to be admissible in federal prosecutions. However, this rule had not been enforced at all by state courts until Wolf v. Colorado case in 1949. Mapp v. Ohio case overruled the previously-mentioned and stated that exclusionary rule is integral to both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Mapp’s case was decided in her favor by a vote of 6-3.
Significance: Ohio Supreme Court reversed the previous court decision. Starting from this case we can speak about broadly use of the exclusionary rule in state courts. Though, professionals still argue that this rule allows many criminals to go free due to such police mistake.
