Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Mapp v. Ohio

Supreme Court of the United States · 1961 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureFourth Amendmentexclusionary ruleincorporationunreasonable search and seizurestare decisisWolf v. ColoradoWeeks v. United States

Facts

Appellant was convicted under an Ohio statute making criminal the mere knowing possession or control of obscene material. The Ohio Supreme Court treated the statute as punishing knowing possession regardless of purpose and without requiring a reasonable opportunity to rid oneself of the material after discovering its obscene character. On appeal, appellant raised constitutional objections to the statute, while the admissibility of allegedly illegally seized evidence was only a subordinate point. Justice Harlan viewed the majority as reaching out to overrule Wolf despite the case's posture and limited briefing on that question.

Issue

Whether this case was an appropriate vehicle to overrule Wolf v. Colorado and impose the Weeks exclusionary rule on the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. More fundamentally, whether the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of privacy against state action necessarily requires adoption of the federal exclusionary remedy in state criminal prosecutions.

Rule

Recognition under the Fourteenth Amendment of the core privacy principle underlying the Fourth Amendment does not necessarily require precise equivalence with federal Fourth Amendment doctrine or compel the States to adopt the federal exclusionary rule as a remedy. A state conviction should be tested for constitutional fairness under due process, and the States remain constitutionally free to choose non-exclusionary remedies for unlawful searches absent affirmative state sanction of police invasions of privacy.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, police officers illegally entered Devon Pike's apartment without a warrant and found a stolen violin. Arizona law allows civil damages and internal discipline against officers who conduct unlawful searches, but its courts admit relevant physical evidence at criminal trials. Devon is convicted after the violin is admitted.

Under the doctrine of the majority opinion provided here, is Devon's conviction unconstitutional solely because the illegally seized violin was admitted?

Explanation. The opinion reasons that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the core privacy principle underlying the Fourth Amendment, but does not require the States to use the federal Weeks exclusionary rule. The relevant due process question is whether the prosecution was constitutionally fair, and the opinion rejects the idea that a trial is automatically unfair merely because relevant evidence was illegally obtained.