Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Dollree Mapp was a known criminal to the Cleveland police and continually evaded their attempts to shut down the illegal activities she ran from her house. In May of 1957 police thought they finally had something that would stick, they suspected her of harboring a fugitive, she turned the cops away demanding that they return with a search warrant if they wanted to enter. The police went back to their car and radio for a search warrant while Mapp called her lawyer. The police attempted to enter the house, but Mapp didn’t open the door so they forced it open, at that time Mapp’s lawyer arrived and asked to see her and was denied. Mapp demanded to see the search warrant and the head officer produced a piece of paper. The police found no evidence of the fugitive they were allegedly searching for, but they did find a wealth of obscene photos which were illegal under Ohio law and arrested Mapp. Mapp was found guilty of possession of obscene materials and sentenced, but her case was appealed to the supreme court.

The vote was six to three in favor of Mapp. Justice Clack who delivered the opinion of the court used this case as a platform for the exclusionary rule. Tying the case in by saying that part of your fourth amendment right is the right to feel secure in your person and protection against illegally obtained evidence in court. My real question pertaining to this case is why did the officer in charge think it was okay to lie and say that he possessed a warrant when he in fact did not. Also I question the motivation of the officer since all evidence obtained illegally is excluded from a trial, which is cemented in this case.

While this case was used as a platform for the exclusionary rule only five out of the six concurring judges expressed full support for the rule. Because of the nature of the rule and it allowing many people who have committed crimes to walk away free because of technicalities it is easy to see many necessary applications in order to protect citizens privacy.