FREE ESSAY ON MAPP V. OHIO

MAPP V. OHIO

Mapp vs. Ohio
The Mapp Vs Ohio Supreme Court Case was a turning point in our nation's history. It
changed our legal system by forming the exclusionary rule, which in turn changed the way
prosecution of a criminal is performed. On May 23, 1957, three Cleveland police officers
arrived at Dolly Mapp's home. They had reason to believe that paraphernalia and a
fugitive of a recent bombing had been hiding out there. The officers asked if they could
search the home without a search warrant, with the advice of her attorney she refused.
Three hours later, four more police officers arrived to the scene. They knocked on the
door but Ms. Mapp did not respond immediately. The officers then forcibly entered the
home by knocking down the door and windows. Ms. Mapp demanded to see a warrant; but an
officer showed her a blank piece of paper that he claimed to be a warrant. An aggravated
with the situation, Ms. Mapp took the warrant and wiped her bosom with it. The officers
arrested her an account she was "belligerent" and "rude". While Ms. Mapp was in
handcuffs, the police conducted an extremely though search of the house by breaking
things and search through private drawers and desk. They found no evidence of a fugitive
and of anything bomb related, however they did find some lewd, and lavacious reading
materials that were illegal in Ohio. Ms. Mapp was ultimately convicted in the Supreme
Court of Ohio on account of her possession of the pornography. The search was illegal
according to a previous ruling in Wolf vs. Colorado; but Ms. Mapp appealed claiming it
violated due process of law. In a 5-3 vote, Wolf vs. Colorado was overturned and the
exclusionary rule of law was developed and determined to be applicable in all courts. In
the process, it has greatly effected our legal system, and the way it is run. The justice
had very important decision to make; to either protect the rights of the accused or
convict criminals at all cost. The court concluded that protecting innocent people's
rights is far more important than convicting criminals.
In 1949, the Court ruled in Wolf vs. Colorado, claming that the due process clause of the
fourteenth amendment did not incorporate the 9th and 10th amendments. Suggesting that the
due process did not protect non-specified rights or was due process permanently defined
within the states. Therefore, according to this case, the state of Ohio was completely
justified in convicting Ms. Mapp for her possession of pornography. Since privacy and
security is not one of our basic, listed rights, due process does not have to apply to
protecting these rights. And certainly since due process in not laid out in black and
white, Ohio could rule and construct due process in any way they saw fit. The Supreme
Court of Ohio did convict Ms. Mapp on her possession of pornography. However, she
appealed to the United States Supreme Court in 1961, and the Court saw it necessary to
review this issue and see what Wolf needed to be overruled.
After reviewing the case, the Court ruled in favor of Ms. Mapp and the exclusionary rule
was developed. This rule said that illegally seized evidence could not be used to convict
a person in a court of law. The Court came about this reason for two key reasons: it did
not coincide with the fourth and fourteenth amendments of the Constitution. Justice Clack
made these ideas clear in his opinion when he said "The ignoble shortcut to conviction
left open to the state tends to destroy the entire system of constitutional restraints on
which the liberties of the people rest. Having once recognized that the right to privacy
embodied in the Fourth amendment is enforceable against the States, and that the right to
be secured against rude invasions of privacy by state officers, therefore, constitutional
in origin, we can no longer permit that right to remain an empty promise. Because it is
enforceable in the same manner and to like effects as other basic rights secured by the
Due Process Clause, we can no longer permit it to be revocable at the whim of any police
officer who, in the name of law enforcement itself, chooses to suspend its enjoyment. Our
decision, founded on reason and truth, gives to the individual no more than that to which
the Constitution guarantees him, to the police officer no less than that to which honest
law enforcement is entitled, and to the courts, that judicial integrity so necessary in
the true administration of justice." That was the overall opinion of the court and the
reason in which the exclusionary rule was formed and guaranteed to the states and local
governments, instead of just Federal Courts.
This decision has greatly affected our legal system as well. The exclusionary rule was
basically formed by giving up on one priority over the other. The question is, weather or
not it is more important to protect the innocent from rude invasions, or to capture and
convict criminals. The Court decided it is far more important to protect the innocent.
The judges felt this would be the best way to protect people from being deprived of their
rights by the police and government. As a result many situations have arose where a
criminal has been set free because of the exclusionary rule. Which has been a major
result for controversy.
When Justice Harlan gave his dissenting opinion, he was fully aware of the situation that
could be arising from this decision. He knew that criminals would be free because of this
and totally disagreed with it. He said "In this instance, for here we are reviewing not a
determination that what the state police did was constitutionally permissible (since the
state court quite evidently assumed that it was not), but a determination that appellant
was properly found guilty of conduct which, for present purpose, it is to be assumed the
State could constitutionally punish." He was referring to how he felt that it should not
matter how someone gains the evidence to prosecute a criminal; the only thing that should
matter is weather the person did it or not. If one commits a crime, they ultimately
should be punished, there should be no loot-poles around it.
I tend to agree with the dissenting opinion on this issue. I do not see it fair for
people to get off because of laws within the system. If a person commits a crime, they
should be convicted for it, regardless of how the evidence is found. If you make
mistakes, you have to pay the consequences. Furthermore, I think that our rights can be
flexible enough to help convict criminals. Our rights have been abridged before; such as
freedom of expression being limited in time of war, and our right to bear arms is being
significantly abridged with each New Year. Therefore, we can be flexible to a point in
our legal system to help police matters. But that is the thing, to point. If Mapp were
overturned, then it would take the full cooperation of the police force. What the police
did in this case was completely out of line. Being locked up as a prisoner, while
strangers search your home is totally unjustified. We would have to make sure that it
would never happen again. 
That is how many Americans, I think feel on this issue. They tend to agree with Justice
Steward and me. Feeling the need to capture the criminals, but not to go as far as giving
up our freedoms. He said, "I express no view as to the merits of the constitutional issue
which the Court today decides. I would, however, reverse the judgement in this particular
case, because I am persuaded that the provision of the Ohio Revised Code, upon which the
petitioner's conviction was based, is, in the words of Justice Harlan, not "consistent
with the rights of privacy and security assured against state action by the Fourteenth
Amendment." Him and the rest of our society fell the need to convict criminals, but at
the same time do not want their rights violated as they were in this case. Maybe we
should not determine how one is convicted, but better yet, make proper adjustments in how
the police can search the home. A warrant does not always cut it, people can get rid of
the evidence before the warrant can be issued. There has to be an adjustment made so that
the police can search without a warrant, but at the same time, not to totally abolish
ones rights. It is a very controversial issue, with a not so clear solution.
Since 1961, the controversial case of Mapp vs. Ohio the Exclusionary has been in tact. I
do not think it will be a major issue in the upcoming election because Americans have
grown accustomed to it within the past 39 years. However, when the Court reviews the case
they will probably head in the direction of police restraint rather than the exclusionary
rule. The rule may give too many rights too our people. One could basically run a muck,
and commit a numerous amount of crimes; but get rid of all the evidence and then be free.
There should be a way to put these criminals in line. Much of Americans feel the same as
I do and this is what we want to see happen, and I think Mapp will be overturned and a
new system will develop. 
Bibliography
1. "Exclusionary Rule Annotations." 1999.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/06.html. 1999
2. "Opinions of Mapp v. Ohio." 1998. 
http://www2.law.cornell.edu. 1998
3. "Regents Case summaries." 1999
http://northport.k12.ny.us/~npthscc/Patch/regreview.html. 1999
4. "Landmark Supreme Court Rulings" 1999
http://www.mtsd.k12.wi.us/Mtsd/District/whacked.sites/antomy.of.a.murder/cases.html.
1999
5. " Mapp v. Ohio". World book Encyclopedia, 1995, volume 13, pp.78-79
6. Smith, Duane E. We the people, The Citizens and the Constitution,
Calabasas: Center for Civic Education, 1995
7. Ratcliffe, Robert H. Vital Issues of the Constitution, 
Boston: Houghton Mifflin company, 1975