Wolf v. Colorado 338 U.S. 25 (1949)

• Author: Jacob W. Landynski
• Pages: 2917

Page 2917

In Wolf the Supreme Court held that "the core" of the FOURTH AMENDMENT'S freedom from UNREASONABLE SEARCHES was "basic" and thus incorporated in the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT as a restriction on searches by state officers, but that its enforcement feature, the EXCLUSIONARY RULE (in effect for federal trials since 1914), was not. The refusal to require the exclusionary rule for state trials was largely based on considerations of FEDERALISM. The Court reasoned, first, that the exclusionary rule could scarcely be considered "basic" when the COMMON LAW rule of admissibility was still followed both in the English-speaking world outside the United States and in most of the American states, and second, that suits in tort against offending officers could be "equally effective" in deterring unlawful searches. The experience of the following twelve years proved the suit in tort to be a paper remedy rather than an effective...