Mapp v. Ohio
(1961)
• Cleveland Ohio police were suspicious that Dollree Mapp was hiding
a person suspected in a bombing.
• Mapp refused to allow them entrance into her house because they did
not have a warrant.
• The police forced their way into Mapp’s house and when Dollree
demanded to see the search warrant, an officer held up a piece of
paper.
• They searched the basement and found a trunk containing
pornographic books, pictures, and photographs
• Mapp was arrested and charged with violating an Ohio law against
the possession of obscene materials
• At the trial the police officers did not show Mapp and her attorney
the alleged search warrant or explain why they refused to do so.
• The court found Mapp guilty and sentenced her to jail.
Background
• Mapp claimed that the first amendment protected her
right to possess those materials.
• The Supreme Court did not address Mapp’s first
amendment claim and instead threw out her conviction.
• However, the court ruled that the evidence against her
should never have been used because it was seized
without a warrant, which violated the Fourth Amendment.
This is called the exclusionary rule.
• The Court held that the exclusionary rule was an essential
part of the Fourth Amendment, and that the Fourteenth
Amendment’s Due Process Clause meant that the federal
exclusionary rule now applied to the states.
Decision
• This was a historical and controversial decision.
• Mapp vs. Ohio placed the requirement of excluding
illegally obtained evidence from court of all levels.
• The decision caused the Court trouble of determining
how and when to apply the exclusionary rule.
• The Warren’s Court legacy began with Mapp vs. Ohio
and continued with other cases that reevaluated the role
of the 14th amendment in State judicial systems.
Effect
U.S. V. LEON
(1984)
• Police in California received anonymous tips that identified
Patsy Stewart, Armando Sanchez, Ricardo Del Castillo, and
Alberto Leon as drug dealers.
• The judge issued a search warrant based on the anonymous
tips and surveillance conducted by police of their residences.
• The police conducted the warrant and recovered large
quantities of illegal drugs
• Leon was convicted for violating federal drug laws
• The search warrant was later found to be invalid because the
police lacked the probable cause for a warrant to be issued in
the first place.
• Therefore, the evidence obtained under the warrant couldn’t be
introduced in Leon’s trial.
Background
• The Supreme Court ruled that there is an exception to the
exclusionary rule.
• The justices held that evidence seized on the basis of a
mistakenly issued search warrant could be introduced at
trial.
• The exclusionary rule cannot deter police in a case like
Leon, where they act in good faith on a warrant issued by
a judge.
Decision
• Over the last several decades, the Supreme Court has
created some exceptions to the exclusionary rule.
• U.S. v. Leon created the “good faith” exception because
the police who used an incorrect search warrant to obtain
evidence had acted in good faith and the evidence was
acceptable.
Effect
• http://www.oyez.org/cases/19801989/1983/1983_82_1771
• http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_236
• http://www.uscourts.gov/multimedia/podcasts/Landmarks
/mappvohio.aspx
• http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_C
R_0468_0897_ZS.html
Works Cited