Mapp v. Ohio – FYS 100 – 34: The Rights of the Criminally Accused

Dollree Mapp was a young women who was known to carry out many illegal activities in her home in Cleveland, Ohio. In May, 1957, Sergeant Delau attempted to enter the home of Mapp in order to shut down one of her illegal operations including harboring a fugitive. He was refused initially by Mapp who met him at the front door due to his lack of a search warrant, therefore he returned to his car and radio for a search warrant. After waiting outside the home for some time, Delau retired to the door and attempted to gain entrance. Maps did not answer the door therefore the police broke in. When Mapp appeared from upstairs the police flashed a piece of paper at her claiming it to be a search warrant. No evidence of a harbored fugitive was found however obscene materials were found, which were illegal in the state of Ohio and Mapp was arrested. In court the prosecution failed to produce the search warrant, but the evidence was still used in the conviction of Mapp. The case was appealed based on a first amendment issue up until it reached the Supreme Court, where the justices transitioned it to a fourth amendment case.

The vote breakdown was 6-3 in favor of of Mapp, with the Majority opinion written by justice Clark, with a joint concurring opinion by justices Black, Douglas, and Stewart. A dissenting opinion was written by justice Harlan.

The decision in this case relied heavily on the precedent set in Weeks v. United States, which imposed the exclusionary rule on all federal agents and agencies. The exclusionary rule mandated that evidence obtained illegally could not be used as evidence in trial. In the majority opinion of this case, Clark concludes that in conjunction with the Wolff v. Colorado which states that the Fourth amendment is applicable to the states under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment, the exclusionary rule should also apply to the states.

It is interesting to think of what the state judicial system must have been like without the imposition of the exclusionary rule, and how many people may have had their fourth amendment right violated in the process. If an officer can illegally obtain evidence without a warrant, and still be able to use that evidence in court, what is the reason for a warrant? It is said in the dissent of this case that states could choose how to enforce the fourth amendment in relation to their cases and officers, that the exclusionary rule should not be mandated upon them. My question is, what actions other than exclusionary rule were taking place? it would seem logical to me that the states did not want this rule imposed upon them because they wished not to have to punish their officers for their wrongdoings. It could also have to do with not wanting to let go the people they know are guilty. This brings up a unique part of this case; people who are known to have committed a crime are being let free due to a nuance in the judicial process. Is it reasonable to allow these people we know for a fact have committed a crime walk free with the general public? I believe that their must be this exclusionary rule because this country was founded on the assumption that we have basic rights, and when these are broken i think that is one of the worst occurrences possible. There are many ways to convict a fugitive legally and if the correct process is followed, these people will be off the street anyways.

Abigail Lord says:

October 23, 2016 at 9:59 pm

The question you impose “is it reasonable to allow these people we know for a fact have committed a crime walk free with the general public?” is one I often consider. It’s very frustrating because both solutions seem to produce problems. On one hand, if anyone witnesses wrongdoing, making it known for a fact that one committed a crime, it should be extremely easy to punish this person. No matter how the information was gained, if someone is evidently guilty, they deserve to serve their time. The issue with this is giving officials way too much power and ability to access details in any person’s life. In our country, especially, we greatly value an individual’s rights and privacy. If the court ruled someone guilty, even though the police gained evidence against them illegally, there would be no true value to one’s rights and privacy. An example of this is the case US v. Jones (2012), where police obtained clear evidence to convict a criminal, but were unable to use any of it because their search warrant had expired. In a perfect world, the American legal system would work because no one would have anything to hide. Unfortunately, people do break the law and can use the justice system to avoid punishment. It must be insanely hard for law enforcement to see individuals, who they know are criminals, return to the public unscathed; especially, because their job’s purpose is to protect others from these people. Obviously, it is imperative that police follow the many strict rules and regulations laid out for them in order to bring justice to criminals.