Mapp v Ohio
Dollree Mapp was accused of harboring Virgil Ogletree, who was a suspect for a bombing and was also involved in a gambling ring. Police knocked on her door and asked to enter, but Mapp insisted that a search warrant was needed to enter her house. They came back later with a piece of paper that was not confirmed to be a warrant. The police never found the suspect in her house, however when they came into the house, they found sexual material that they arrested her for having. Her lawyers used the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search and seizure) as their main argument in the Supreme Court.
Breakdown Verdict.
A 6-3 decision supported Mapp. Justice Tom Clark among other concurring justices supported that evidence acquired by unlawful searches are inadmissible (cannot be introduced in court). Because the alleged search warrant—which was not verified to be legitimate—was originally in relation to finding the bomb suspect, they could not incriminate her on other grounds.
Result Going Forward.
With this ruling, the exclusionary rule that makes illegally obtained evidence inadmissible was put into effect for all states. Beforehand, the statutes regarding the rule were at the discretion of the state, which meant that states would either deter the police in some way to justify searches or simply trust their law enforcement without restriction.
Do you agree with the verdict?
0%
0%