mapp v. ohio
Case name: Dollree Mapp v. State of Ohio
Year decided: 1961
Result: 6-3, in favor of Mapp
Related constitutional issue/amendment: Fourth Amendment (search and seizure)
Civil rights or civil liberties: civil liberties
Significance/precedent: The Court asserted that "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by [the Fourth Amendment], inadmissible in a state court." In Mapp v. Ohio, the exclusionary rule was established which states that evidence illegally seized may not be used on any level of the government to convict suspects. Since the evidence used to convict Mapp was illegally obtained, the evidence could not be used against Mapp.
Quote from majority opinion: "Having once recognized that the right to privacy embodied in the Fourth Amendment is enforceable against the States, and that the right to be secure against rude invasions of privacy by state officers is, therefore, constitutional in origin, we can no longer permit that right to remain an empty promise...Our decision, founded on reason and truth, gives to the individual no more than that which the Constitution guarantees him, to the police officer no less than that to which honest law enforcement is entitled, and, to the courts, that judicial integrity so necessary in the true administration of justice."
Summary of the dissent: States should be allowed to follow their own methods for dealing with their own criminal problems. The 14th Amendment does not give the Supreme Court the authority to mold state processes for search and seizure by the police. Federal compulsion should not be forced upon the states in place of voluntary state action.
Six-word summary: Come back with a search warrant.
Year decided: 1961
Result: 6-3, in favor of Mapp
Related constitutional issue/amendment: Fourth Amendment (search and seizure)
Civil rights or civil liberties: civil liberties
Significance/precedent: The Court asserted that "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by [the Fourth Amendment], inadmissible in a state court." In Mapp v. Ohio, the exclusionary rule was established which states that evidence illegally seized may not be used on any level of the government to convict suspects. Since the evidence used to convict Mapp was illegally obtained, the evidence could not be used against Mapp.
Quote from majority opinion: "Having once recognized that the right to privacy embodied in the Fourth Amendment is enforceable against the States, and that the right to be secure against rude invasions of privacy by state officers is, therefore, constitutional in origin, we can no longer permit that right to remain an empty promise...Our decision, founded on reason and truth, gives to the individual no more than that which the Constitution guarantees him, to the police officer no less than that to which honest law enforcement is entitled, and, to the courts, that judicial integrity so necessary in the true administration of justice."
Summary of the dissent: States should be allowed to follow their own methods for dealing with their own criminal problems. The 14th Amendment does not give the Supreme Court the authority to mold state processes for search and seizure by the police. Federal compulsion should not be forced upon the states in place of voluntary state action.
Six-word summary: Come back with a search warrant.