Mapp v. Ohio

(redirected from 367 U.S. 643)
Also found in: Legal.

Mapp v. Ohio,

case decided in 1961 by the U.S. Supreme Court. Dollree Mapp was convicted in a state court of possessing pornographic material in violation of Ohio law. Her conviction was obtained on the basis of evidence taken by the police when they entered (1957) her boardinghouse without a search warrant while looking for gambling materials. The Supreme Court, in overturning her conviction, declared that the exclusionary rule (based on the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution), which prohibits the use in federal court of evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure, extended also to state courts. The ruling provoked a good deal of controversy; while proponents of the exclusionary rule claim that it is the only means of assuring freedom from illegal searches, opponents argue that a criminal should not go free because of a police officer's violation of the Constitution.
The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia™ Copyright © 2013, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
References in periodicals archive ?
Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961): Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule applies in state criminal trials
Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655 (1961) (establishing evidence seized by illegal search and seizure inadmissible in court).
Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 649, 655 (1961) (holding that the exclusionary rule--which prevents the prosecution from admitting evidence at trial which was unconstitutionally acquired--applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment).
(17.) 367 U.S. 643, 655 (1961) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 660 (1961) (holding the exclusionary rule also applies to state courts via the Fourteenth Amendment).
Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (holding that evidence obtained by an unconstitutional search and seizure is inadmissible in a criminal trial in a state court); see also McGinnis & Rappaport, supra note 1, at 837, 850.
Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 656-59 (1961) (citing deterrence and utility of judicial intolerance for illegal law enforcement activities as reasons for rule); Elkins v.