Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1961

Mapp v. Ohio

367 U.S. 643 | 81 S. Ct. 1684 | 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 | 1961 U.S. LEXIS 812

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, Mapp made the exclusionary rule applicable to state criminal prosecutions: state courts generally may not admit evidence obtained through unconstitutional searches or seizures.

Background

Cleveland police went to Dollree Mapp’s home after receiving information that a bombing suspect and gambling materials might be there. Mapp called her lawyer and refused entry unless the officers produced a search warrant. After waiting for several hours and receiving reinforcements, officers forcibly entered the house, prevented Mapp’s lawyer from seeing her, handcuffed Mapp, and conducted an extensive search of her apartment and the building’s basement. They found allegedly obscene books, photographs, and other materials.

At trial, Ohio introduced the seized materials to prove that Mapp knowingly possessed obscene matter, in violation of Ohio law. The prosecution never produced a search warrant, and the record left substantial doubt that one had existed. The Supreme Court of Ohio sustained the conviction even though it acknowledged that the evidence had been unlawfully seized. Relying on Wolf v. Colorado, Ohio treated illegally obtained evidence as admissible in state criminal trials. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether evidence obtained by state officers through an unconstitutional search or seizure may be admitted in a state criminal prosecution.

Holding

No. The exclusionary rule applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, so evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution is inadmissible in state court. Wolf v. Colorado is overruled to the contrary.

Reasoning

The Court began with its federal precedents. In Weeks v. United States and later cases, the Court had held that the Fourth Amendment bars federal courts from admitting evidence obtained through unconstitutional searches and seizures. Without exclusion, the Fourth Amendment’s protection would be merely a promise without an effective means of enforcement.

Wolf had already held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures by state officers. But Wolf declined to require state courts to exclude illegally obtained evidence. The Mapp Court concluded that this separation of the right from its established remedy was logically untenable: once the Fourth Amendment’s privacy protection binds the States, the exclusionary sanction essential to that protection must bind them as well.

The factual premises of Wolf had also weakened. At the time of Wolf, many States had not adopted exclusion; by 1961, more had done so. More importantly, experience showed that alternative remedies—such as civil suits, internal police discipline, or criminal prosecution of offending officers—were generally ineffective at deterring unconstitutional searches.

Exclusion serves a central deterrent purpose by removing the incentive for officers to violate constitutional limits. It also preserves judicial integrity: courts should not convict a defendant by accepting the fruits of official lawlessness. The Court acknowledged that exclusion can sometimes benefit a guilty defendant, but held that the Constitution requires that cost rather than permitting government officials to disregard the law.

A uniform rule also avoids a harmful double standard between federal and state courts. Under the prior regime, evidence that federal prosecutors could not use could be delivered to state prosecutors for use in state court. Applying exclusion in both systems promotes cooperative law enforcement under a shared constitutional standard.

Concurrences

Justice Black

Reasoning

Justice Black agreed that Mapp’s conviction must be reversed, but he did not conclude that the Fourth Amendment alone expressly requires exclusion. Because the Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches but does not specifically state that illegally seized evidence cannot be used at trial, he remained doubtful that exclusion follows from the Fourth Amendment standing alone.

He found a constitutional basis for exclusion in the combined operation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Drawing on Boyd v. United States, he reasoned that compelling a person to yield private papers or effects for use against herself closely resembles compelling self-incriminating testimony. On that broader Fourth–Fifth Amendment understanding, exclusion is constitutionally required and supplies a clearer alternative to the uncertain due-process standard that excluded only police conduct that “shocks the conscience.”

Justice Douglas

Reasoning

Justice Douglas stressed the extreme facts of the search: officers forcibly entered Mapp’s home, restrained her, excluded her attorney, and searched throughout her apartment and the basement. In his view, the case vividly demonstrated the danger of allowing police to conduct home searches without an effective judicial remedy.

He argued that the alternatives to exclusion were largely illusory. Expecting police departments or prosecutors to police their own unconstitutional conduct was unrealistic, and a civil trespass action was burdensome and provided inadequate relief. Therefore, without exclusion, the Fourth Amendment protection recognized in Wolf was effectively a dead letter.

Douglas also emphasized that allowing state courts to use evidence barred in federal court created an irrational double standard and encouraged evasion through federal-state working arrangements. Applying exclusion to the States ended that asymmetry and gave practical force to the constitutional guarantee.

Justice Stewart

Reasoning

Justice Stewart agreed that the judgment should be reversed but expressly declined to address whether Wolf should be overruled or whether the exclusionary rule applies to the States. He would have reversed on a different ground: Ohio’s law criminalizing mere knowing possession of obscene material was inconsistent with the freedom of thought and expression protected against the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Dissents

Justice Harlan

Reasoning

Justice Harlan argued first that the Court should not have reached the exclusionary-rule question. In his view, the principal issue presented and argued was whether Ohio could constitutionally punish mere private possession of obscene material. That narrower free-expression issue could have resolved Mapp’s case without overturning Wolf, so the Court violated the principle of avoiding unnecessary constitutional decisions.

He also faulted the Court’s process. Mapp herself had not asked the Court to overrule Wolf in her briefing or oral argument, and the issue received little focused argument. Because Wolf was a recent and consequential precedent on which state criminal justice systems had relied, Harlan believed the Court should at least have ordered reargument before discarding it.

On the merits, Harlan maintained that Wolf correctly distinguished between the Fourteenth Amendment’s substantive protection against arbitrary police intrusion and a particular federal remedy for enforcing that protection. Wolf recognized privacy as part of ordered liberty, but it did not make every federal Fourth Amendment doctrine—including the Weeks exclusionary rule—automatically binding on the States.

The exclusionary rule, in Harlan’s view, was a remedial device designed to deter police misconduct, not an indispensable component of a fair criminal trial. States could reasonably choose other means to deter unlawful searches, and their differing law-enforcement conditions justified allowing them to make that policy choice rather than imposing a single federal remedy.

He rejected the majority’s analogy to coerced confessions. A coerced confession directly compromises the accusatorial fairness of a trial because the accused is made the instrument of her own conviction. Illegally seized physical evidence, by contrast, may be highly reliable and its exclusion is aimed chiefly at deterring prior police misconduct, not at correcting an inherent defect in the truth-finding process. Justice Frankfurter and Justice Whittaker joined this dissent.