In Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S.

643, the United States Supreme Court held that evidence

obtained violating the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures,

is inadmissible in state courts. The decision in this case has received appreciation for helping to

ensure that law enforcement authorities follow the letter of the law and protect people's

fundamental rights. In this case study, I will examine the significance established in applying the

exclusionary rule to state courts, ensuring that law enforcement agencies act within the confines

of the law and respect the constitutional rights of individuals.

The police had reason to believe that a bombing suspect might be hiding in Mapp's home,

but they did not have a search warrant to enter the house. Mr. Justice CLARK, who delivered the

opinion of the Court, stated, “Upon their arrival at that house, the officers knocked on the door

and demanded entrance, but appellant, after telephoning her attorney, refused to admit them

without a search warrant.” After Mapp refused to let them in without a warrant, they forced entry

during a second visit. Later, he stated, “When Miss Mapp did not come to the door immediately,

at least one of the several doors to the house was forcibly opened, and the policemen gained

admittance.” The police searched Mapp's house but could not locate the suspect. They found

obscene materials that were against Ohio state law. Clark asserts, “had in her possession and

under her control certain lewd and lascivious books, pictures, and photographs in violation of s

2905.34 of Ohio's Revised Code.”

Mapp disputed that the evidence against her should be subjugated from the trial, for it

was obtained through an unlawful search and seizure. There was a disagreement about whether

the exclusionary rule should apply to state courts because it had previously only been employed

in courts. Mr. Justice HARLAN, states, “The Ohio statute which, as construed by the State

Supreme Court, punishes knowing possession or control of obscene material, irrespective of the
purposes of such possession or control (with exceptions not here applicable)7 and irrespective of

whether the accused had any reasonable **1703 opportunity to rid himself of the material after

discovering that it was obscene,8 surely presents a Constitutional *676 question which is both

simpler and less far-reaching than the question which the Court decides today.”

Mapp received a prison sentence after being found guilty in a state court. Mapp's

attorneys contended during the trial that the evidence used against her should be subdued

because it was obtained illegally through a search and seizure. The prosecution maintained that

the exclusionary rule did not apply to state courts, so the evidence was admissible in court. The

US Supreme Court found Mapp's favor in a historic case, holding that evidence gathered through

an illegal search and seizure was inadmissible in court. Clark later expresses, “I agree with the

conclusion of the Court that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of ‘unreasonable searches and

seizures' is enforceable against the states.” (Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 644, 81 S. Ct. 1684,

1685, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (1961)) The Court established the exclusionary rule as applying to state

and federal courts.

I believe the Mapp v. Ohio decision significantly impacted the criminal justice system. It

was clear that law enforcement organizations must act legally and concerning people's

constitutional rights. To protect people's rights and liberties, the exclusionary rule has grown to

be a vital safeguard against unconstitutional searches and seizures. The case has influenced how

courts apply the exclusionary rule, the Fourth Amendment, and other legal principles. The law

preserves people's rights and liberties and guards against wrongful searches and seizures.

In conclusion, the Mapp v. Ohio case established the exclusionary rule's applicability to

state courts and was seminal. The decision significantly impacted the legal system and gave

people more protection against unauthorized searches and seizures by law authorities. The case

established a crucial legal precedent and influenced how courts interpret and uphold legal
precedents and constitutional rights. The Mapp v. Ohio case left a significant legacy that

continues to be a vital component of the US judicial system. The incident serves as a reminder of

the value of defending individual liberties and rights as well as making sure that law enforcement

agencies follow the letter of the law. The Mapp v. Ohio case exemplifies the US Constitution's

and the rule of law's continuing strength.

References

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 644, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 1685, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (1961).

https://1-next-westlaw-com.us1.proxy.openathens.net/Document/I236cdffa9c1e11d9bdd1cfdd54

4ca3a4/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search%2Fv1%2Fresults%2Fnavigation%2Fi0ad62

af00000018a5dcb02a0b7c0611a%3Fppcid%3Dc9e80ba30a744ea7a4341c95ddbddeb2%26Nav%

3DCASE%26fragmentIdentifier%3DI236cdffa9c1e11d9bdd1cfdd544ca3a4%26parentRank%3D

0%26startIndex%3D1%26contextData%3D%2528sc.Search%2529%26transitionType%3DSearc

hItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=774cbf4b74815265cdf68fadc9be55ca&list=ALL&ra

nk=1&sessionScopeId=6ebe6f857eab3a0749217a240676eeef97af90e3e85f53d18c1570f1cb4551

ca&ppcid=c9e80ba30a744ea7a4341c95ddbddeb2&originationContext=Search%20Result&transi

tionType=SearchItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29