Mapp v. Ohio: Case Briefs

Mapp v. Ohio Facts: suspicious that the petitioner (Dollree Mapp) was hiding a bombing suspect and some paraphernalia that that may have been used to carry out a bombing in the state, Cleveland police went to her residence demanding to be allowed to conduct a search in regard to the same. The petitioner, after consulting with her attorney, refused to let them in because they did not have a warrant to that effect.

The officers left, but returned several hours later holding up a sheet of paper that they claimed was a search warrant. They forcibly made their way into the house, conducted a thorough search, and seized a trunk containing obscene materials in the basement. They then charged the defendant for the possession of obscene materials in violation of state law.

The defendant filed an appeal on grounds that the search conducted by police in her boardinghouse violated the provisions the Fourth Amendment, which protect citizens against unwarranted searches and seizures by law-enforcement agencies. Legal Issue: should evidence obtained through an unwarranted search (a search that violates the Fourth amendment) be accepted, and admitted as evidence in court? Holding: the U.S.

Supreme Court overturned the defendant's conviction, holding that all evidence discovered in the course of an unwarranted search by law-enforcement agencies was inadmissible in court and had to be excluded from all state prosecutions. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment makes it paramount for states to enforce the sanction of exclusion as they do the right of privacy since both arise from the Search and Seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment.

Law-enforcement agencies at all levels of governments are required to show respect for the Constitution, the very symbol they swore to uphold -- police officers must not obtain evidence by infringing on the constitutional rights of citizens, and prosecutors too must not make use of illegally-obtained evidence in state prosecutions. Discussion and Opinion: there is no doubt that the exclusionary rule would go a long way in ensuring that citizens enjoy their right to privacy, free from unnecessary and illegal searches and seizures on their person or their property.

Moreover, there is no doubt that it ensures that government officials, particularly police officers, and prosecutors lead by example and that they uphold the constitutional guarantee by operating under the requirements and prohibitions of the Constitution at all times. Of course, if the government conducts itself in line with the law, the citizenry will most definitely toe the line; but if the government itself is a lawbreaker, then there is deemed to be contempt for the law among the citizenry (Case Briefs, 2014).

That said, nevertheless, I strongly agree with Justice J. Harlan, who voted with the minority in this particular holding, and gave the dissenting opinion that although the exclusionary rule is desirable; it ought not to be imposed on states, particularly because such imposition is likely to cause rigidity that could inhibit state prosecutions from effectively addressing their peculiar issues in law-enforcement (Case Briefs, 2014). Well, the very aim of criminal law enforcement is to maintain order in society by.