Mapp v. Ohio

[© tweed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapp_v._Ohio

[A18]

Unsound.

Under the common law, illegally obtained evidence could be admitted in court. The Fourth Amendment's authors were certainly entitled to depart from this rule (or lack thereof), but they did not do so. The Fourth Amendment pertains only to searches and seizures. It has nothing to say about the admission of evidence, obtained by legal or illegal methods.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Sound, but the law she was charged with violating should've been thrown out as well.

Dolree Mapp = Big Time Freedom Fighter

[Sam Spade]

Ah, another one of the Warren Court's criminal procedure rulings.  I tend to find them most of them quite annoying and quite wrong, this being included.  The Court doesn't even really address the correct question; I agree with Harlan's dissent here.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Sound.  This isn't a case of a mistakenly issued warrant, or even a case of coming across evidence in good faith during a search necessitated by the potential of imminent danger.  Not only did the police not have a warrant, they took the time to decide to offer a make believe warrant.  Even if one grants the police the benefit of the doubt in entering the house to look for the guy they thought was there, why look in the chest?

I'm all in favor of allowing the use of evidence obtained without a warrant by the police, if the police acted in good faith, and in giving the police the benefit of the doubt when determining if they did act in good faith, but the police in this case acted in complete and utter bad faith and deserved to be fired and jailed for their actions in this case.

[Beet]

It is not for us to judge whether it is sound or unsound, especially as participants in a political discussion board.

If unsound, the decision will be overturned by the Justices currently sitting on the Court who possess the premier authority to do so; unless that transpires, it is sound.

[Nym90]

I strongly support the decision. If evidence obtained illegally can be used in trial, what is the incentive to obey the law? It is the "fruit of the poison tree".

Kind of like arguing that if you robbed a bank, you may get thrown in jail for it, but you should still get to keep the money.

Now, I agree that often this can go to ridiculous extremes. It probably should be taken on a case by case basis. However, it is critical that the police follow proper procedure in these types of cases.

[minionofmidas]

I'm all in favor of allowing the use of evidence obtained without a warrant by the police, if the police acted in good faith, and in giving the police the benefit of the doubt when determining if they did act in good faith.

The first is alright (not allowing that can be pretty frustrating...and not just to the cops themselves), but the second is already far too far down the road into the police state for any sane's liking.

[Emsworth]

The Fourth Amendment's text and history certainly fail to justify the exclusionary rule. Vague arguments have been made that the Fifth Amendment's self-incrimination clause, combined with the Fourth Amendment, require the exclusion of illegally seized evidence, but these arguments tend to rely less on a plain interpretation of the words, and more on almost metaphysical subtleties in the Constitution's language and grammar.

Nonetheless, this precedent is so deeply rooted in the criminal justice system, that to overturn it would be extremely unwise. This is just one of those historical errors that one will have to tolerate.

[A18]

Good to see you back, Emsworth. Busy with college, I presume?

I can of course easily "tolerate" the exclusionary rule, as I strongly support it as a policy matter, but I am not convinced that overturning this line of cases would be the sort of catastrophic earthquake you suggest. My guess is that the vast majority of states, being so accustomed to it, would adopt exclusionary rules of their own, though perhaps not as draconian (we are the odd man out, from a world perspective).

[Emsworth]

Good to see you back, Emsworth.

Thanks.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree that the affects of overturning Weeks, Mapp, and its progeny will not be as significant as overturning, say, certain commerce clause cases. However, I would contend that the exclusionary rule has attained a very central position in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, a centrality that is not rivaled by other Warren Court inventions which I would be happy to see overturned.