4th Amendment-Search and Seizures:
Wolf v. Colorado (1949):
Facts of the Case:
The Colorado Supreme Court upheld a number of convictions in which evidence was admitted that would have been inadmissible in a prosecution for violation of a federal law in a federal court.
Question:
Were the states required to exclude illegally seized evidence from trial under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments?
Conclusion:
In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not subject criminal justice in the states to specific limitations and that illegally obtained evidence did not have to be excluded from trials in all cases. The Court reasoned that while the exclusion of evidence may have been an effective way to deter unreasonable searches, other methods could be equally effective and would not fall below the minimal standards assured by the Due Process Clause. Civil remedies, such as "the internal discipline of the police, under the eyes of an alert public opinion," were sufficient.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Facts of the Case:
Dolree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an admittedly illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. She appealed her conviction on the basis of freedom of expression.
Question:
Were the confiscated materials protected by the First Amendment? (May evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding?)
Conclusion:
The Court brushed aside the First Amendment issue and declared that "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by [the Fourth Amendment], inadmissible in a state court." Mapp had been convicted on the basis of illegally obtained evidence. This was an historic -- and controversial -- decision. It placed the requirement of excluding illegally obtained evidence from court at all levels of the government. The decision launched the Court on a troubled course of determining how and when to apply the exclusionary rule.
Decisions
Decision: 6 votes for Mapp, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment
1. The exclusionary rule, which was applied to state governments, as well as the federal government in Mapp v. Ohio (1961), meant that
a. state governments are excluded from prosecuting federal crimes.
b. federal agents may make arrests for state crimes.
c. probable cause must be established prior to arrest.
d. unlawfully obtained evidence could not be used in court.
e. searches by police could not be made without a legal search warrant.
“Just as the 4th Amendment’s right to privacy has been declared enforceable against the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth, it is enforceable by the same sanction…as is used against the federal government. Were it otherwise…. The assurance against unreasonable search and seizures would be “a form of words” valueless… in the concept of ordered liberty.”
Justice Tom Clark Mapp v Ohio (1961)
Which two principles are addressed in the excerpt above?
I. The incorporation doctrine
II. The concept of eminent domain
III. The exclusionary rule
IV. The “wall of separation doctrine”
A. I and II
B. I and III
C. I and IV
D. II and III
E. II and IV