Week Three: The Exclusionary Rule —Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Our seventh series focuses on some of the US Supreme Court’s most important civil liberties cases. We continue this week with the case that assured the Constitution’s 4th Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures applied to the states as well as to the federal government.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. ”
Mapp is a fascinating case that was almost decided as a 1st Amendment obscenity case but, instead, became our most important 4th Amendment case.
The case originated in Cleveland, Ohio, when local police officers forced their way into Dollree Mapp's house without a proper search warrant believing that a suspected bomber was hiding there. No suspect was found. Police, however, discovered a trunk of obscene pictures in Mapp's basement and arrested her for possessing the pictures.
Mapp was convicted by an Ohio court of violating what was generally thought to be a poorly crafted and probably unconstitutional Ohio obscenity law. Mapp, however, had also argued that her Fourth Amendment rights had been violated by the search and, as a result, the evidence obtained by that search should be excluded at trial. At the time of the case, however, unlawfully seized evidence was banned from federal courts but permitted in many state courts, including Ohio’s.
For this case, we are using an audio recording from US Courts Landmark Cases series as our quick summary. The recording at the link below runs a little less than 4 minutes.
For a more detailed consideration of the case, follow the link below to C-SPAN Classroom for a series of video clips about the case and its lasting impact on American law.
Of the video clips, #6 which runs 6:45 is especially interesting as it focuses on the decision and how what might have been a routine 1st Amendment obscenity case instead became our single most important 4th Amendment case.