Mapp versus Ohio involved a key question
in American jurisprudence the question
is what should we do when police
officers commit an unconstitutional
search should we allow them to use the
evidence that they found or should we
exclude the evidence as a way of
deterring police officers from
committing unconstitutional searches
[Music]
Mapp versus Ohio involved a police
search where police entered the home of
Dahl remap whether they had a warrant to
do so or not as disputed in the Supreme
Court ultimately assumed that they did
not have a warrant when the police were
in the home however what is undisputed
is that they found some incriminating
evidence for example they found betting
slips showing that MS Mapp was involved
in illegal gambling operations they also
found obscene materials which means that
Miss Mapp had violated Ohio's laws
against possessing obscene materials and
the issue then that the Supreme Court
had to decide was whether that evidence
could be used by the state of Ohio in
criminal prosecutions against MS Mount
Mapp versus Ohio it's decided by a
roughly six to three margin the majority
said that the exclusionary rule is part
and parcel of our constitutional right
to be free from unreasonable searches
and seizures the basic idea behind the
exclusionary rule is that police
officers should be given an incentive to
comply with the Fourth Amendment
for example police officers are trying
to decide whether to break into
someone's home or to get a search
warrant if the exclusionary rule says
the evidence will be excluded if they
don't get a warrant then maybe the
police officers will have the incentive
to go get a search warrant and comply
with the Fourth Amendment if you don't
have an exclusionary rule the majority
justices said then the police will be
free to violate the rights of citizens
because they'll know that there's no
consequence to their illegal behavior
the dissenters agreed that the Fourth
Amendment is a fundamental part of our
liberties in this
country but took the position that each
state should be free to craft their own
remedies for enforcing those rights so
the dissenters would have allowed Ohio
to decide to admit illegally seized
evidence or exclude illegally seized
evidence as it saw fit the dissenters
would not have imposed an exclusionary
rule as some kind of constitutional
requirement on Ohio and the other states
Mapp versus Ohio was a controversial
decision when it was handed down in 1961
the common criticism is that it lets the
criminal go free because the constable
blundered why critics of the
exclusionary rule ask should we let
someone who has got pile of drugs or a
murder weapon in their home get off
simply because the police made some kind
of a mistake in collecting that evidence
and the exclusionary rule remains
controversial even today for example in
2018 Justice Thomas in a dissenting
opinion called on the supreme court to
re-examine the basic constitutional
underpinnings of the exclusionary rule
just as Thomas suggested that the
underpinnings weren't there and it was
time for the supreme court to simply
abolish the exclusionary rule the way
the Supreme Court has put it is that the
exclusionary rule was part and parcel of
our constitutional rights and that
without an exclusionary rule the police
would essentially have a license to
break into people's homes and illegally
seized evidence the exclusionary rule is
a judicially created remedy designed to
deter illegal police behavior by taking
away any incentive for police officers
to illegally search and discover
evidence that they might want to use a
trial
[Music]