Project Three Template
Taylor Heger
CJ-207: The United States Judicial System
Dr. Colleen Olson
December 18, 2022
Mapp v. Ohio
Summary Impact of the Case
In the case, the Supreme Court Mapp v. Ohio
ruled in a 5-3 vote in favor of Mapp, that any
evidence acquired by means of violating an
individual’s Fourth Amendment right against
unreasonable searches and seizures is
inadmissible in a criminal trial in a state
court. Additionally, the Supreme Court
extended the exclusionary rule to state courts,
which previously was only pertinent to
federal criminal prosecutions.
Mapp v. Ohio played a hand in reforming
police policies across the nation. It reinforced
individuals Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendment right against unreasonable
searches and seizures by deeming it
unconstitutional for evidence that is obtained
illegally, such as without a warrant, to be
used against a defendant in state criminal
prosecutions. is well known for the Mapp
concept of the exclusionary rule, although it
was commenced before that in the Weeks
case. According to critics it “exemplified the
Warren Court’s liberal concern for the rights
of defendants as opposed to the needs of law
enforcement.” (Mauro, 2006). However, in
1984, in a pair of decisions, the Court stated
that unjustifiably seized evidence may be
included at trial if it could be proved that law
enforcement would have surely spotted it
without the illegal search, or if they were
assuming in good faith dependent upon an
insufficient search warrant.
Gideon v. Wainwright
