Exclusionary rule in criminal procedure

¶ … Exclusionary Rule be Abolished?

The exclusionary rule states that evidence that has been illegally obtained may not be used within the confines of a criminal trial to convict a party, even if that party was clearly guilty of the crime in question (Exclusionary, 2006). There have been many cases where this rule has been used, and because of that, too many guilty people have gone free. The most significant case, and the one that holds the strongest argument as to the idea that the exclusionary rule should be abolished, is Mapp v. Ohio (1961). The facts of this case are important to a clear understanding of why the exclusionary rule should be abolished, and those facts are as follows:

Cleveland police came to Mapp's home on 23 May, 1957, acting on information that someone was hiding there. This person was wanted for questioning and the police had information that not only the person but the equipment used for a recent bombing was hidden in the home. They demanded to enter but Miss Mapp refused because her attorney advised that she not allow them to enter without a search warrant. The officers contacted headquarters and begin a surveillance of the house. Three hours later there were more officers on the scene and they once again asked for entrance to the home. She did not answer the door immediately and one of her doors was then forced open by police. Miss Mapp's attorney arrived and officers would not let him come in or see his client. Miss Mapp lived on the second floor but officers broke into a hallway leading to the basement. They produced a paper that they claimed was a search warrant and Miss Mapp took the paper and placed it inside of her shirt near her breast. There was a struggle between Miss Mapp and several officers and the piece of paper was recovered.

Miss Mapp was also handcuffed as officers stated she was being belligerent. One of her hands was twisted sharply by the officers and she informed him that he was hurting her and asked that he stop. She was then led to her bedroom and her personal papers, dresser, closets, suitcases, and anything else in the room was searched. A child's bedroom, living room, kitchen, and dinette on the second floor were also searched. After this police went to the basement and they found a trunk with obscene materials inside of it. The prosecution could produce no search warrant at trial and there was no discussion about the failure to produce one. Miss Mapp was then convicted of the possession of obscene materials. There was some concern as to whether there actually ever was a search warrant and the methods that were used to search Miss Mapp's home were offensive to what most people would see as a sense of justice. The conviction was still upheld, however, because the evidence that was taken had not been taken by brutal or offensive force.