Here is the text of the Fourth Amendment:
“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.”
 |
| Courtesy of The Week |
In 1961, Dollree Mapp (probably
the most ridiculous name in a case to date) was suspected of harboring a
fugitive. Police arrived, with a warrant to search for the suspect. Mapp resisted, stashing the warrant under her
clothes (a bold choice) and tried to prevent the search from occurring. The officers
ended up detaining her and searching the house thoroughly.
Upon further search, the suspect
was indeed found. However, the kicker comes when we learn that Mapp was a dirty
birdy and had pornographic materials stashed in a footlocker. Back in the 60’s,
while stereotypically a free time, porn was considered obscene and illegal –
for more, look in to Miller v. California.
Mapp was sentenced to 1-7 years
for the possession of “lewd and lascivious” materials. Immediately, she
appealed this conviction on account of freedom of expression being protected by
the First Amendment.
The Court basically said they
didn’t care about Mapp’s First Amendment appeal. However, they used a wildly
more compelling point to make their decision – were the police really looking
for a suspect (presumably man-sized) in a footlocker (presumably smaller than
man-sized)?
Mapp was let off on this simple
idea. The police did indeed have a warrant, but that warrant was to search for
a fugitive suspect and a fugitive suspect only. Clearly, the police, in the
fervor that Mapp’s belligerence worked them in to, exceeded the scope of their
warrant.
The real constitutional question
boils down to this: under the Fourth Amendment, can the evidence of the pornographic
material found in Mapp’s home be used to convict and sentence her?
The court, in a 6-3 decision on
June 19th, 1961, ruled that the evidence was illegally obtained. A
landmark decision, this case codified the rules about collecting evidence in
accord with the Constitution.
By far the furthest reaching
implication of Mapp v. Ohio, other than encouraging people to hide their porn
better, would be the exclusionary rule. According to Wex, the exclusionary rule
“prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the
United States Constitution”. Seemingly a valuable stipulation, this rule caused
unforeseen complications for the Supreme Court in dealing with illegitimate evidence.
There are many specifications to the exclusionary rule, testament to its
complexity: the good faith exception, the independent source doctrine,
inevitable discovery doctrine, attenuation doctrine, and qualified immunity, to
name a few.
Mapp was a ground breaking case
that laid the framework for the application of the Fourth Amendment to future
cases. Even though good ole Dollree seems like quite the character, her case
against the state of Ohio is a critical one to understanding the Fourth
Amendment.
This case is very important for our history. It was one of the first cases that established the principle of selective incorporation, which is the process of making the Bill of Rights applicable to the States via the 14th amendment. Furthermore, no illegal search and seizures is one of our most important amendments. I liked how you showed one of the first instances in which it was used and how the exclusionary rule was applied. This was a very informative post.
ReplyDeleteAh the good ol' "that's not what the warrant says" situation. From the small amounts of TV I've watched, it seems that warrants play a major part in the justice system. This is probably one of the most important rights in the sense that it gives privacy. If all other rights were gone, at least you could hide in your house and be safe until a reason is found to enter.
ReplyDeleteNice pun in the title... This case almost seems like the commonly told anecdote of the police searching your car after they 'smell' marijuana. The fourth amendment seems to becoming ever more important, especially in interpreting it in the context of electronic data.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed this post! Unfortunately, I am one of those Americans who wouldn't be able to tell you the 5th Amendment, but you've changed that! You're able to take the issue and develop a background and basis for knowledge in a very concise way. Good post!
ReplyDeleteI remember reading about this case in either AP US History or Gov, but I remember how intriguing it was. I honestly find this amendment to be one of the most fascinating because it has such huge implications for the justice system. The effects of this decision are pretty crazy when you think about it, so I like how you pulled in a really cool post about a rather obscure amendment.
ReplyDelete