Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Police forced their way into Dollree Mapp's home holding a paper "claimed to be a warrant." The Court said evidence seized that way can't be used in any state court.
General information, education, and entertainment only, not legal advice. Supreme Dicta is produced by AVR LLC. Watching, reading, signing up, or contacting Supreme Dicta does not create an attorney-client relationship, and AVR LLC does not provide legal services through this site or channel. For advice about your situation, consult a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction. Full disclaimer.
Quotations are from the official U.S. Reports, a public court record; page numbers are given so you can check them.
The case at a glance
- Citation
- 367 U.S. 643 (1961)
- Argued
- March 29, 1961
- Decided
- June 19, 1961
- Opinion of the Court
- Justice Clark
- Vote
- 6–3
- Dissent
- Justice Harlan, joined by Justices Frankfurter and Whittaker
- Overruled
- Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), insofar as it held otherwise
- Follow-up
- Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969); United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984)
The majority vs. the dissent
Must states exclude illegally seized evidence?
Majority
Yes. "We hold that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by that same authority, inadmissible in a state court." (367 U.S. at 655)
The dissent
Not as a constitutional command. The exclusionary rule "is but a remedy," and "Problems of criminal law enforcement vary widely from State to State." (367 U.S. at 680–681)
Is a right without the rule real?
Majority
No. "To hold otherwise is to grant the right but in reality to withhold its privilege and enjoyment." The rule's purpose is "to deter," by "removing the incentive to disregard it." (367 U.S. at 656)
The dissent
Harlan did not see how a trial "becomes unfair simply because" a state lets the jury weigh relevant evidence, "regardless of how it was obtained." (367 U.S. at 683)
Should the Court have decided it here?
Majority
Clark pointed to the double standard: "Presently, a federal prosecutor may make no use of evidence illegally seized, but a State's attorney across the street may." "There is no war between the Constitution and common sense." (367 U.S. at 657)
The dissent
No. The Wolf question was "briefed not at all and argued only extremely tangentially," and the majority had "simply 'reached out' to overrule Wolf." (367 U.S. at 674, 676)
What about letting the guilty go free?
Majority
Answering Cardozo's "the criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered": "The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free." Quoting Brandeis: "If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy." (367 U.S. at 659)
The dissent
Harlan warned against forcing on the states "an adamant rule which may embarrass them in coping with their own peculiar problems," and said the Court's "voice becomes only a voice of power, not of reason." (367 U.S. at 681, 686)
What happened next
Mapp's conviction was reversed (367 U.S. at 660).
In Stanley v. Georgia (1969), the Court held that the Constitution forbids making mere private possession of obscene material a crime (summary of the syllabus, not a quote).
In United States v. Leon (1984), the Court held that evidence can still be used when officers reasonably relied on a warrant from a neutral magistrate that later turned out to be invalid (summary of the syllabus, not a quote).
(367 U.S. at 660; 394 U.S. 557; 468 U.S. 897)
Chapters
Common questions
Can illegally seized evidence be used in court?
In Mapp v. Ohio (1961), the Supreme Court held that evidence obtained by searches and seizures that violate the Constitution is inadmissible in state court. That exclusionary rule already applied in federal court; Mapp applied it to the states and overruled Wolf v. Colorado on that point. This is general information, not legal advice.
What happened at Dollree Mapp's house?
According to the opinion, officers forced open a door and held up a paper "claimed to be a warrant." At trial the prosecution produced no warrant. A widespread search turned up the materials behind her obscenity conviction. The Supreme Court reversed that conviction under the exclusionary rule.
Why did the dissent disagree?
The dissenting justices argued that the Court decided a question the parties had barely briefed, that the exclusionary rule is a remedy states should be free to choose, and that a trial does not become unfair simply because a jury hears relevant evidence however it was obtained.
Are there exceptions to Mapp's rule?
Yes. Later cases limited how far the rule reaches. In United States v. Leon (1984), for example, the Court held that evidence can still be used when officers reasonably relied on a search warrant from a neutral magistrate that later turned out to be invalid. Details depend on current law and specific facts.
Answers summarize this episode for general information only, not legal advice. Full disclaimer.
Get the next case by email
One email when a new case is out. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.
We use your email only to send Supreme Dicta updates. See our privacy policy. Signing up does not create an attorney-client relationship; this is general information, education, and entertainment, not legal advice. Disclaimer.
Read the opinions
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961): official U.S. Reports scan (PDF) (Library of Congress)
- Mapp v. Ohio: catalog record (Library of Congress)
- Mapp v. Ohio: full text (Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School)
- Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969): official U.S. Reports scan (PDF) (Library of Congress)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984): official U.S. Reports scan (PDF) (Library of Congress)
- Dollree Mapp, Who Defied Police Search in Landmark Case, Is Dead (Dec. 9, 2014) (The New York Times)
Full transcript
Read every word of the episode, with page-cited sources for each quote.
General information, education, and entertainment only, not legal advice. Supreme Dicta is produced by AVR LLC. Watching, reading, signing up, or contacting Supreme Dicta does not create an attorney-client relationship, and AVR LLC does not provide legal services through this site or channel. For advice about your situation, consult a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction. Full disclaimer.
Quotations are from the official U.S. Reports, a public court record; page numbers are given so you can check them.