Illegally Obtained Evidence, Mapp v. Ohio

[A18]

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)

Held: All evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Federal Constitution is inadmissible in a criminal trial in a state court.

MR. JUSTICE CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court.

Appellant stands convicted of knowingly having had in her possession and under her control certain lewd and lascivious books, pictures, and photographs in violation of 2905.34 of Ohio's Revised Code. As officially stated in the syllabus to its opinion, the Supreme Court of Ohio found that her conviction was valid though "based primarily upon the introduction in evidence of lewd and lascivious books and pictures unlawfully seized during an unlawful search of defendant's home . . . ."

... The judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

[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.

[Jake]

Evidence is evidence, no matter how it was obtained.

[A18]

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

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

[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.

[The Duke]

Mapp is a pro-criminal ruling.

[MarkDel]

MAPP is a classic example of the "results based" judicial philosophy of the Warren Court and many future Supreme Court rulings. They picked the "right side" then worked their way backwards to find a rationale that could somehow justify (even with tortured logic) the final holding. Personally, I think it's ludicrous that someone should be charged for having porno, but that is NOT the issue here and it NEVER was despite the tortured logic of the Supreme Court majority here.