Miss Mapp is the petitioner in a case regarding bombing where she happened to be a suspect. The Police officers resolved to search for evidence at the petitioner’s residence, but after her denial for entry they sought for military means where they force themselves in. After the search for her seizure, obscene materials are unleashed of which she is tried and convicted of possession of such (4law School).
Cleveland police officers, three in number, visited the petitioners at her home. The visit was due to prior information about the existence of equipment regarding the bombing she was convicted of doing. In an appropriate manner the officers knocked to seek a chance to conduct their intended exercise, the request was not fruitful as the petitioner rejected it reason being they had no search warrant. The officers managed to avail a search warrant in a few hours later. The police offers made their way in by force since the petitioner did not allow them anymore. The petitioner’s attorney came with an aim of meeting her, but he was not granted permission to get even in the compound. The petitioner ordered to have a look at the search warrant, but hide it after receiving it. Eventually, the warrant was recovered from the petitioner by the officers after a struggle. The petitioner was arrested and taken to the second floor where her bedroom is, this was done purposefully to give room for a search. After a keen and careful search, the officers managed to unleash relevant stuff in a trunk in the basement. In due course, the petitioner was convicted of possessing the unleashed things
Issue
Is it legal to present evidence got from arrest and searched in violation of Fourth Amendment of the Constitution before a State court?
Decisions
Tom Clark a Justice (“J. Clark”) filed majority’s opinion. According to all State prosecutions, no exceptional rule is applicable to evidence got with violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution by seizure and search.
Similar sanction of exception is enforceable against Fourth Amendment’s right of privacy in relation to the Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The main aim of the exceptional rule is to put off illegal obtaining of evidence, at the same time this promotes appreciation and respect for the constitutional guarantee effectively in a proper manner. The state swears to respect and uphold the constitution and its role thus by admitting illegal evidence it shall be a violation. A criminal should only go free by law. The government serves the purpose of safeguarding the law and enforcing it but not breaking it. The government by then it should lead by example since it’s also a subject to the law (Perisco 1997).
Reasoning
Statistics shows half of states to be adhering to common-law as per a recent study conducted. Should the states really be forced to follow the rule or it should be out of willing desire.
Separate opinions
Justice H. Black filed a like-minded opinion. In consideration of the fourth amendment’s disallow of unfair seizure and search with the Fifth Amendment’s disallow of compelled self-incrimination, a constitutional based emerges requires and justifies the exclusionary rule.
Justice W. Douglas filed a like-minded opinion too. According to him this served a better chance to put a stop to unevenness that Wolf imported.
Analysis
This case overrides Wolf (1949). Unlawfully obtained evidence is excluded as per the fourth amendment to the constitution. The federal exclusionary rule applies at the moment to states via implementation of the fourteenth amendment.
Works cited
MAPP v. OHIO. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 27 April 2015. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_236>.
"Mapp v. Ohio Case Brief." Mapp v. Ohio Case Brief. Web. 27 Apr. 2015. <http://www.4lawschool.com/criminal/mapp.htm>.
Persico, Deborah A. Mapp V. Ohio: Evidence and Search Warrants. Springfield, NJ: Enslow Publishers, 1997.
