Illegally Obtained Evidence, Mapp v. Ohio

[Emsworth]

The exclusionary rule is not mandated by the Fourth Amendment. The Amendment only speaks of the right to be secure from searches and seizures; it does not in any way treat the admission of evidence (whether legally or illegally seized). The admission of illegally seized evidence does not violate the Fourth Amendment; rather, the violation is fully accomplished by the unlawful search or seizure alone. Nor does the exclusionary rule in any sense cure the prior violation.

Once we look to the positions of the society that framed the Bill of Rights, the view that the exclusionary rule is not constitutionally mandated becomes even more obvious. The position of the common law was abundantly clear: evidence, even if seized illegally, can be admitted. The remedy for an illegal search was not the exclusion of evidence, but a suit against the officer conducting the search for trespass.

I am an ardent supporter of the exclusionary rule, insomuch as it places necessary limitations on overzealous police officers. I can think of no better way to deter unreasonable searches. Yet, I am compelled to admit that nothing in the Constitution requires the adoption of this rule.

It follows that Mapp was incorrectly decided, just like Weeks v. United States.

[Emsworth]

The position of the common law was abundantly clear: evidence ... cannot be admitted.

No, I'm pretty sure that wasn't the rule.

Typo corrected.