Dollree Mapp, etc., Appellant v. Ohio
367 US 643, 6 Led 2d 1081, 81 S Ct 1684 [No. 236] (1961)
Facts
Cleveland Police Officers were given information that a person was hiding
out in a home that was wanted for questioning in regard to a recent bombing.
Police arrived at Appellant Mapp's home and demanded entrance. Defendant
Mapp denied entry on advice of counsel, and the police, after advising
headquarters, undertook surveillance. Some three hours later, the police
again demanded entry. When Appellant Mapp did not come to the door, the
police forcibly gained entry. There, they showed Appellant Mapp what was
purportedly a warrant, and after arresting her, searched the premises.
There they found lewd, leviscious book and pictures. Appellant Mapp was
convicted in trial court of knowingly having these materials.
Question
Does the Weeks Exclusionary Rule (excluding evidence from trial obtained
during unconstitutional searches and seizures) apply to states through the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Holding
The Court held that the Weeks Exclusionary Rule did apply to the states
through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Reasoning
In its decision, the Court mainly cites the cases of Weeks v. The United
States, and Wolf v. Colorado. In Weeks, the court found that evidence
obtained through unconstitutional searches and seizures was inadmissable in
Federal Trials. The courts reasoning was that the people's right to be
secure in their persons, houses and effects against unreasonable searches
and seizures was a set of meaningless words if the Courts allowed evidence
found in violation of the Fourth Amendment to be admitted in trial. In
Wolf, the Court held that the Fourth Amendment's guarantee was a right,
"implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," as per Palko v. Connecticut,
and thus included in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
However, the court did not find that the Exclusionary Rule was so implicit,
stating that states could find other ways to insure the guarantees of the
Fourth Amendment.
In this case, the Court cites People v. Cahan in the California Supreme
Court, which forced that state to follow the Weeks Rule, since other
remedies have completely failed to secure the Fourth Amendment Guarantees.
The Court essential argues that all other remedies have also, failed to
guarantee the rights, and in fact cannot but fail.
The Court also reasons that without applying the Weeks Rule, the Court
would grant the right, but withhold it's privileges, making it a useless
jumble of words.
The Court finally reasoned that instituting the Weeks Rule in states was
common sense not inconsistent with the Constitution. Without holding states
accountable to the Exclusionary Rule, Federal Officers could literally go
across the street to have the case prosecuted by a state prosecutor, even
though, both Federal and State Prosecutors are subject to the same rule.