Criminology

 Facts Mrs. Mapp was convicted for possession lewd and lascivious materials prohibited by an Ohio statute. Cleveland police officers approached Mrs. Mapps home under the pretext of a searching for a person who has been charged for a recent bombing and is believe to be hiding in the place. Upon her attorneys advice, Mrs. Mapp initially refused to entrance to the police officers. However, the police returned three hours later and gained entry in the house by use of force. When Mrs. Mapp demanded for the search warrant, the police officer merely brandished a piece of paper to her without letting her read its contents. A struggle ensued when Mrs. Mapp forcibly took the paper and placed it inside her bosom, which led to her being handcuffed due to belligerent behavior. Mrs. Mapps lawyer was also prevented from seeing her or entering the house. The police officers then conducted search of the entire house and eventually discovered the prohibited articles.

Issue Whether or not the evidence obtained through unreasonable search and seizure is admissible as evidence

Holding No, the doctrine in Wolf v Colorado is overturned such that all evidence obtained through an unconstitutional search and seizure are inadmissible in a criminal trial not only in federal courts but also in state courts. 

Majority Opinion delivered by Justice Clark
The decision revolved around the interconnection between the Fourth Amendment right of citizens to privacy and protection against governmental intrusion on his person, house, papers and effects and the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Admitting evidence acquired through unlawful means reduces into powerless words the constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Such measure requiring strict adherence to the constitutional requirements of warrant will likewise act as a deterrent safeguard for the right. No other formula is acceptable in determining the reasonableness of the search so there is a need for a uniform measure. In this light, the decision overturns the ruling in Wolf v Colorado and reinstates the validity of the exclusionary rule which was first enunciated in the Weeks case. The Court further related the Fourth Amendment rights to the Due Process clause found in the Fourteenth Amendment in that the right to privacy may be enforced against the State by invoking due process rights. The application is intended to avoid double standards wherein neither party (prosecution or defense) may benefit from the evidence under consideration.

Concurring Opinion of Justice Black
Justice Black has expounded on his support for the reinstatement of the exclusionary rule. However he believes that the said rule is not contained in the plain wording of the Fourth Amendment rather, a judicially created rule of evidence that evidence may negate. Consistently with his stand that the Fourth Amendment alone does not justify the exclusionary rule, he opined that it may nevertheless find constitutional basis if the Fourth Amendment is taken in conjunction with the Fifth Amendment rule. He cited Boyd v United States wherein constitutional protections should be liberally construed.

Concurring Opinion of Justice Douglas
Justice Douglas placed more emphasis on the applicability of the exclusionary rule for both the state courts and federal courts in order to eliminate the danger of double standards. He further stated that the Wolf doctrine downplays the crucial role of the guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Dissenting Opinion of Justice Harlan joined by Justice Frankfurter and Justice Whittaker

In his dissent, Justice Harlan believed that the integrity of the Wolf doctrine is supported by the proper and stricter application of the stare decisis rule in constitutional cases. The majority of the Court was also mistaken in determining the main issue in the appealed case. Instead of the propriety of recognizing the exclusionary rule, it should have been whether  2905.34 of the Ohio Revised Code, making criminal themereknowing possession or control of obscene material, and under which appellant has been convicted, is consistent with the rights of free thought and expression assured against state action by the Fourteenth Amendment.