Mapp v Ohio

Definition

Mapp v Ohio is a landmark Supreme Court case from 1961 that established the exclusionary rule at the state level, prohibiting the use of illegally obtained evidence in criminal trials. This case connected the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures to the states through the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, reinforcing the principle of selective incorporation.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The Mapp v Ohio case arose when police illegally entered Dollree Mapp's home without a warrant and seized materials that were later used to convict her of possession of obscene materials.
2. The Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that evidence obtained through illegal searches could not be used in state courts, thereby extending the exclusionary rule established in federal cases.
3. This case marked a significant step in protecting citizens' rights against unlawful police conduct and reinforced the importance of due process under the law.
4. Mapp v Ohio was pivotal in shaping how law enforcement conducts searches and collects evidence, leading to increased emphasis on obtaining warrants.
5. The ruling was part of a broader movement during the Warren Court era that aimed to expand civil liberties and protect individual rights against government overreach.

Review Questions

• How did Mapp v Ohio change the legal landscape regarding the exclusionary rule and its application at the state level?
  • Mapp v Ohio significantly expanded the exclusionary rule by applying it to state courts, meaning that any evidence obtained through unlawful searches and seizures could not be admitted in court. Prior to this ruling, the exclusionary rule only applied at the federal level. This decision ensured that individuals' constitutional rights were protected from state actions, emphasizing that all levels of government must adhere to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches.
• Analyze the relationship between Mapp v Ohio and the concept of selective incorporation as it relates to the 14th Amendment.
  • Mapp v Ohio illustrates the concept of selective incorporation by using the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause to apply protections found in the Bill of Rights, specifically those in the Fourth Amendment, to state actions. This case demonstrated how fundamental rights are not just federal but also apply at state levels, reinforcing that states cannot infringe upon rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The decision set a precedent for future cases where other Bill of Rights protections would similarly be incorporated against states.
• Evaluate the broader implications of Mapp v Ohio on law enforcement practices and civil liberties in America.
  • Mapp v Ohio had far-reaching implications for law enforcement practices across America by mandating adherence to constitutional standards during searches and seizures. Police departments were required to ensure they had proper warrants or probable cause before conducting searches, which aimed to reduce arbitrary or invasive actions by law enforcement. This ruling not only strengthened civil liberties but also highlighted the ongoing tension between law enforcement objectives and individual rights, influencing how courts handle cases involving search and seizure for decades.

Related terms

Exclusionary Rule:

A legal principle that prevents the use of evidence collected in violation of a defendant's constitutional rights during a criminal trial.

Fourth Amendment:

An amendment to the U.S. Constitution that protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.

14th Amendment:

An amendment to the U.S. Constitution that grants citizenship and equal protection under the law, and is used to apply Bill of Rights protections to state governments.