The case of Mapp v. Ohio is poignant for many reasons. This seminal case which guards against all of us, citizens or not, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures was decided 50 years ago on June 19, 1961. Incredibly enough, this case all began with Don King, the future boxing promoter with the unique hairdo, whose home was bombed on May 20, 1957.
The bombing led to a police investigation into gambling and the rackets and in just a few days later to the home of Dollree Mapp, an Ohio woman, who would spend the next four years fighting over the scope and the effect of the search of her home and the seizure of evidence from it.
The exclusionary rule is designed to exclude evidence obtained in violation of a criminal defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizures by law enforcement personnel. If the search of a suspect is unreasonable, the evidence obtained in the search will be excluded from trial.
The rule has been in existence since the early 1900s. Before the case of Mapp, if the judge in a criminal trial found the evidence to be relevant, it was admitted. The Weeks v. U.S. case in 1914 exemplifies this concept. A federal agent had conducted a search without a warrant for evidence of gambling at the home of Freemont Weeks. The evidence was used at trial and he was convicted.
In Mapp, Cleveland police officers went to the home of Dollree Mapp to ask her questions regarding the King home bombing. The officers demanded entrance into her home. Mapp called her attorney and then refused to allow the officers to enter her home without a warrant. They went in anyway, without a warrant, handcuffed her, searched the house, and refused to let her lawyer enter. The search concluded with some gambling paraphernalia and alleged obscene books, pictures and photographs. The books were “London Stage Affairs,” “Affairs of a Troubadour,” “Memoirs of a Hotel Man,” and “Little Darlings.”
When she asked for a search warrant, the police gave her a piece of paper. When she took the paper and placed it down her blouse, a cop went in after it. First, prosecutors pursued her on a gambling charge for which she was acquitted. Then, about a year later, prosecutors charged her with obscenity (for the books and pencil sketch of a nude). She was convicted and sentenced to seven years state prison. She challenged her conviction primarily on First Amendment grounds. But today, this case is not known as a case for free speech.
The United States Supreme Court chose another path to grant relief. It was decided 6-3 on Fourth Amendment grounds against unlawful search and seizures. To the shock of even the litigants in the case, the Court reversed the 1949 ruling in Wolf v. Colorado and made the “exclusionary rule” applicable to state criminal cases.
The rule prevents the government from introducing evidence at trial that was obtained by the police from that defendant in an unconstitutional manner. It was created by the Court “to deter police misconduct.” It is still regularly invoked by criminal defendants but it has been challenged by the establishment of the Good Faith Exception Rule noted in the 1984 case of United States v. Leon.
In Leon, the police searched the Burbank, California home of Alberto A. Leon, and arrested Leon after they found a large quantity of drugs in his possession. The search was executed pursuant to a search warrant which was later determined to be invalid since the information contained therein was no longer timely and thus “stale.” However, the United States Supreme Court allowed the evidence in trial since the exclusionary rule was meant to punish police misconduct and not the judge who made a mistake by overlook key factors in the warrant.
What comes in as evidence in a criminal case is critical. How it is obtained especially by law enforcement officials and agencies are heavily scrutinized. Thermal imaging is not rare—it examines the inner workings of a home and can obtain details of a private home without physical intrusion. But for now under Kyllo v. United States, the Court affirms that a search warrant is required. However, the exclusionary rule will surely evolve as new types of electronic surveillance are used.