The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unlawful search and seizure of property without a warrant. The aim of the amendment is to make sure that the law enforcement agencies do not overstep their mandate when executing their duties. Additionally, the amendment is meant to ensure that the citizens’ right to privacy is protected. The Mapp v. Ohio case brought out some fundamental facts regarding the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that the law enforcement officers breached the Exclusionary Act, which is contrary to the spirit of the U.S Constitution. The evidence used against Mapp was obtained illegally; therefore, it was inadmissible in a court of law.
The case began when Mapp was suspected of harboring a fugitive and gambling material. The police went over to her place with the intention of searching her premises; unfortunately, they were unable to conduct a search as they lacked a search warrant. After three hours, they came back and tried to gain entry to her home, though she did not answer the door. They forced their way in, but Mapp demanded to see a search warrant. One of the officers waved a paper at her, which she snatched thinking it was the warrant, but to her surprise it was not. Having illegally searched her house and found some magazines in her basement, the police officers opened a case against her.
Mapp, however, appealed her case on the basis of illegal acquisition of evidence, as the police officers had no warrant. She stated that, having been wrongly acquired, the evidence should not have been admitted to court. Her argument was based on the Exclusionary Rule, which states that “if evidence is illegally or unconstitutionally seized, it cannot be used at trial” (Pearcy, 2016).
The Supreme Court ruled that the evidence should be excluded from the case because as per the Exclusionary Rule, it was not admissible in court. The Exclusionary rule was to prevent law enforcers from illegally obtaining evidence. The Mapp case made the rule binding to all states.
The implication of the Mapp case is that, in future, police officers have to follow the right procedures when obtaining evidence criminal suspects. The case should encourage police officers to use the proper channels in the acquisition of evidence. Through this, they would uphold every individual's right. For the evidence obtained to be admissible in court, it has to be in line with the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that “ local and state governments cannot deprive any citizen of life, liberty or property without due cause” (Lobb, 2016). This upholds the rights every individual is entitled to.
In conclusion, the ruling in the case between Mapp and Ohio was certainly fair since it was based on the Constitution. The fact that the court ruled that way shows respect to the Constitution and that is a good way of encouraging the law enforcement officers to follow the Constitution. That would prevent the law enforcement officers from collecting inadmissible evidence, especially after following a wrong lead.
References
Pearcy, M. (2016). The Exclusionary Rule: Definition, History, Pros & Cons | Study.com. Study.com. Retrieved 10 May 2016, from http://study.com/academy/lesson/the-exclusionary-rule-definition-history-pros-cons.html
Lobb, D. (2016). 14th Amendment: Definition & Summary - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com. Study.com. Retrieved 10 May 2016, from http://study.com/academy/lesson/14th-amendment-definition-summary-quiz.html
