| Mapp v. Ohio | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued March 29, 1961 Decided June 19, 1961 | |
| Full case name | Dollree Mapp, et al. v. State of Ohio |
| Citations | 367 U.S. 643 (more) 81 S. Ct. 1684; 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081; 1961 U.S. LEXIS 812; 86 Ohio L. Abs. 513; 16 Ohio Op. 2d 384; 84 A.L.R.2d 933 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Defendant convicted, Cuyahoga County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas; affirmed, Ohio Court of Appeals; affirmed, Ohio Supreme Court 166 N.E.2d 387 (Ohio 1960) |
| Subsequent | Rehearing denied, 368 U.S. 871 (1961). |
| Questions presented | |
| Were the confiscated materials protected from seizure by the Fourth Amendment? | |
| Holding | |
| The Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth, excludes unconstitutionally obtained evidence from use in criminal prosecutions. Ohio Supreme Court reversed. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Clark, joined by Warren, Black, Douglas, Brennan |
| Concurrence | Black |
| Concurrence | Douglas |
| Concurrence | Stewart |
| Dissent | Harlan, joined by Frankfurter, Whittaker |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amends. IV, XIV | |
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings | |
| Wolf v. Colorado (1949) | |
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled that the exclusionary rule, which prevents a prosecutor from using evidence that was obtained by violating the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, applies to states as well as the federal government.
The Supreme Court accomplished this by use of a principle known as selective incorporation. In Mapp, this involved the incorporation of the provisions, as interpreted by the Court, of the 4th Amendment, which applies only to actions of the federal government into the 14th Amendment's due process clause. Citing Boyd v. United States, the Court opined, "It is not the breaking of his doors, and the rummaging of his drawers, that constitutes the essence of the offense; but it is the invasion of his indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty, and private property."