Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643 (1961)

AuthorJacob W. Landynski
Pages1666-1667

Page 1666

Mapp v. Ohio brought to a close an abrasive constitutional debate within the Supreme Court on the question whether the EXCLUSIONARY RULE, constitutionally required in federal trials since 1914, was also required in state criminal cases. Mapp imposed the rule on the states.

WOLF V. COLORADO (1949) had applied to the states the FOURTH AMENDMENT'S prohibition against UNREASONABLE SEARCHES, but it had not required state courts to exclude from trial evidence so obtained. Mapp 's extension of Wolf was based on two considerations. First, in Wolf the Court had been persuaded by the rejection of the exclusionary rule by most state courts; by 1961, however, a narrow majority of the states had independently adopted the rule. Second, the Wolf majority was convinced that other remedies, such as suits in tort against offending officers, could

Page 1667

serve equally in deterring unlawful searches; time, however, had shown that such remedies were useless. "Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws," wrote Justice TOM C. CLARK for the Court, "or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence."

In Mapp v. Ohio the Court asserted emphatically that the exclusionary rule was "an essential part" of the Fourth Amendment and hence a fit subject for imposition on the states despite "passing references" in earlier cases to its being a nonconstitutional rule of evidence. Yet, in some hazy phrasing, the opinion also suggested that the Fifth Amendment's RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION was the exclusionary rule's constitutional backbone. Equally confusing was the Court's characterization of the rule as "the most important constitutional privilege" (that is, personal right) guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment while at the same time pointing to the rule's deterrent effect as justification for its imposition. More recently, the Court has settled on deterrence as the crucial consideration, and thus has refused to apply the rule in situations, such as GRAND JURY...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT