Landmark Supreme Court Interpretations of the U.S. Constitution
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Summary: On May 23, 1957, forcibly entered the house of Dollree Mapp with a piece of paper they claimed to be a search warrant, under the suspicion of the presence of a bombing suspect and evidence in the house. Mapp was arrested, tried and convicted for the possession of obscene materials discovered during the illegal search.
The Law: “All evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by [the Fourth Amendment], inadmissible in a state court” ("law.cornell.edu").
Issue: Whether or not a State court should accept evidence obtained during a search and seizure conducted that violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.
Held: The case was held in the Supreme Court in 1961 during the presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower. The majority opinion was filed by Justice Tom J. Clark.
Arguments for Mapp: The police had no authority to Mapp’s house without any warrant. According to the y rule of the Fourth Amendment, any evidence seized during an unauthorized search could not be accepted even in a State court.
Arguments for Ohio: The “the Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure” ("law.cornell.edu"). The State of Ohio argued that Fourth Amendment protections can be overruled according to the Fourteenth Amendment.
Decision: With 6 votes in favor of Mapp and 3 against, Mapp’s convinction was overturned by the Supreme Court in accordance with the Fourth Amendment.
Opinion: The Mapp v. Ohio was the first time the Fourth Amendment guarantee was applied in the Supreme Court and the case helped in defining what “unreasonable search and seizure” means.
U.S. v. Nixon (1974)
Summary: During the investigation of the break-in of the Watergate Hotel, the special prosecutor demanded that President Richard Nixon hand over taped conversations. President Nixon refused to do so, on the basis of “executive privilege.
The Law: The presidential privilege of immunity cannot be sustained from the judicial process, whether based on the need for confidentiality, or on the doctrine of separation of powers.
Issue: Can information be legally withheld by the President from other branches of government because of the separation of powers that the Constitution has created?
Arguments for the U.S.: The President does not have absolute power to claim executive privilege. If the courts need access to evidence in a criminal proceeding, then the President may not invoke executive privilege.
Arguments for Ohio: Information can be rightfully held from other branches of government by the President according to the constitutional scheme of separation of powers.
Decision: The Supreme Court made the unanimous decision that President Richard Nixon could not legally invoke executive privilege in this case and had to hand over the tapes.
Opinion: This case served as an example that even a President might not have executive privilege under certain circumstances and in modern society, it is proof that no one, not even the President, is above the law.
Works Cited
"Mapp v. Ohio (No. 236)." law.cornell.edu. Legal Information Institute. Web. 17 Dec 2012.
"United States v. Nixon (No. 73-1766)." law.cornell.edu. Legal Information Institute. Web. 17 Dec 2012.
"WOLF v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO (two cases).." law.cornell.edu. Legal Information Institute. Web. 17 Dec 2012.
