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

Effect 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

Works Cited http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_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_CR_0468_0897_ZS.html Works Cited