Mapp v. Ohio | BRI’s Homework Help Series

0:00 The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

0:21 Though these protections of the Fourth Amendment were widely accepted, they only applied to the national government. The Fourteenth Amendment adopted after the Civil War, impose restrictions on state governments. That amendment says, in part, that no state shall deprive any person of due process. Over time, the Supreme Court applied the protections of the Bill of Rights

0:43 to state governments on an amendment by amendment basis, through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This process of applying the Bill of Rights to state governments is known as incorporation. Is this constitutional? Should the Bill of Rights apply only to the federal government to protect individual liberties or to state governments as well? What rights do individuals have against illegal seizures at the state level

1:07 under the Fourth Amendment? This is the case of Mapp v. Ohio. [MUSIC] In 1957, Dolly Mapp was a 33-year-old woman living in Cleveland, Ohio,

1:33 rumored to have ties to organized crime and informant told police that she may have been hiding a local racketeer wanted for illegal gambling and for questioning in connection with a recent bombing. On May 23rd, 1957, seven police officers broke into her home without a search warrant. The officers did not find the alleged fugitive or any gambling equipment.

1:54 However, they did find obscene pictures and books, which were illegal in Ohio at the time. Mapp was arrested, convicted of possessing obscene material, and imprisoned. Mapp appealed her case to the Ohio State Supreme Court, which affirmed the conviction. The court found the lack of a warrant did not invalidate Mapp’s conviction as Ohio courts were allowed to admit

2:16 unlawfully seized evidence in criminal trials. Mapp’s attorney, Alexander Kearns appealed to the United States Supreme Court, arguing that Mapp’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated since they should be incorporated at the state level via the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause. How would the Supreme Court rule?

2:36 Would the illicit material found in Mapp’s apartment hold up at the highest level? In a six to three decision, the US Supreme Court held that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unwarranted searches and seizures was inadmissible in state courts. Mapp was set free. The court ultimately relied on the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

2:57 to conclude that the federal Exclusionary Rule was applicable to the states through the incorporation doctrine. Chief Justice Tom Clark wrote for the majority stating, "The criminal goes free if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws or worse, it’s disregard of the charter of its own existence."

3:21 The burden was now on police to conduct legal searches to find evidence or it would be excluded and the accused would go free. The three dissenting judges rejected the incorporation doctrine, and thus, rejected the extension of the Exclusionary Rule to the states. Justice Harlan wrote for the descent emphasizing that his decision was rooted in the idea

3:41 that since problems of criminal law enforcement vary from state to state, the federal government should limit setting universal standards within them. Justice Harlan wrote, "The preservation of a proper balance between state and federal responsibility and the administration of criminal justice demands patience on the part of those who might like to see things move faster among the states in this respect.

4:03 Problems of criminal law enforcement vary widely from state to state." Mapp v. Ohio set precedent in the 1960s for the Supreme Court to incorporate other procedural protections to criminal defendants that protected the rights of the accused such as Gideon vs Wainwright in 1963, the law of search and seizure continues to develop decades after Mapp v. Ohio.

4:23 For example, courts today grapple with new issues relating to search and seizure in a digital age. The case also helped strengthen the expansion of the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to states. Incorporation remains a hotly debated issue amongst legal scholars as it relates to the principles of federalism and principles of legal interpretation.

4:43 When will incorporation be the subject of another major Supreme Court case? This was the case of Mapp v. Ohio. Thanks so much for watching, guys. Be sure to like and subscribe. And comment below.