View source for Mapp v. Ohio

{{Short description|1961 US Supreme Court ruling}}
{{Use American English|date=September 2025}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
| Litigants = Mapp v. Ohio
| ArgueDate = March 29
| ArgueYear = 1961
| DecideDate = June 19
| DecideYear = 1961
| FullName = [[Dollree Mapp]], et al. v. State of Ohio
| USVol = 367
| USPage = 643
| ParallelCitations = 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
| OralArgument = https://apps.oyez.org/player/#/warren7/oral_argument_audio/14657
| Prior = Defendant convicted, [[Cuyahoga County, Ohio|Cuyahoga County]], [[Ohio Courts of Common Pleas|Ohio Court of Common Pleas]]; affirmed, [[Ohio Court of Appeals]]; affirmed, [[Ohio Supreme Court]] 166 [[N.E.2d]] 387 (Ohio 1960)
| Subsequent = Rehearing denied, {{ussc|368|871|1961|el=no}}.
| QuestionsPresented = Were the confiscated materials protected from seizure by the Fourth Amendment?
| Holding = The Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable [[Search and seizure|searches and seizures]], as applied to the states through the Fourteenth, excludes unconstitutionally obtained evidence from use in criminal prosecutions. Ohio Supreme Court reversed.
| Majority = Clark
| JoinMajority = Warren, Black, Douglas, Brennan
| Concurrence = Black
| Concurrence2 = Douglas
| Concurrence3 = Stewart
| Dissent = Harlan
| JoinDissent = Frankfurter, Whittaker
| LawsApplied = [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. amends. IV]], [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|XIV]]
| Overturned previous case = ''[[Wolf v. Colorado]]'' (1949)
}}

'''''Mapp v. Ohio''''', 367 U.S. 643 (1961), was a landmark [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] decision in which the Court ruled that the [[exclusionary rule]], which prevents a prosecutor from using [[Evidence (law)|evidence]] that was [[False evidence|obtained by violating]] the [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourth Amendment]] to the [[U.S. Constitution]], applies to [[U.S. state|states]] as well as the [[U.S. federal government|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 Fourth Amendment, which applies only to actions of the federal government into the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]]'s [[due process clause]]. On the matter of [[Warrantless searches in the United States|warrantless searches]], the court cited ''[[Boyd v. United States]]'' and ruled, "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."

==Legal background==
{{see also|Exclusionary rule}}
The [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution]] provides: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...."  Until the early 20th century, Americans' only legal remedy in cases where law enforcement officers violated the Fourth Amendment was to sue the officers involved, either for [[trespass|trespassing]] to recover [[damages]] or via the [[replevin]] tort to recover their seized goods or property. This changed in 1914 when the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in ''[[Weeks v. United States]]'' that any evidence obtained by federal law enforcement officers in violation of the Fourth Amendment could not be used in federal criminal proceedings.{{sfnp|LaFave|2012|loc=§&nbsp;1.1(c), p. 13}} 

Over the next several decades, American courts generally held that this "[[exclusionary rule]]" only applied to cases in which federal law enforcement officers, not state officers, were involved in illegal searches and seizures. In 1949, the Supreme Court confronted the issue of the exclusionary rule's application to states in ''[[Wolf v. Colorado]]''. The ''Wolf'' Court found that although 17 states had adopted the exclusionary rule from ''Weeks'' in their state law, 30 others had rejected it. The Court therefore concluded that it was not a "departure from basic standards" of [[due process]] to allow states to introduce illegally obtained evidence in state trials.{{sfnp|LaFave|2012|loc=§&nbsp;1.1(d), pp. 16–17}}

For the next 12 years, the Supreme Court only applied the exclusionary rule to evidence obtained by state officers for use in state court prosecutions when the state officers used coercion, violence, or brutality.{{sfnp|LaFave|2012|loc=§&nbsp;1.1(d), p. 18}} For example, in the 1952 case ''[[Rochin v. California]]'', the Court required a California state court to exclude evidence that state officers had illegally obtained, but only because the officers had used "conduct that shocks the conscience".<ref>{{harvp|LaFave|2012|loc=§&nbsp;1.1(d), p. 18}}, quoting ''Rochin v. California'', 342 U.S. 165, 172 (1952).</ref>

==Case history==
[[Dollree Mapp|Dollree "Dolly" Mapp]] was a young woman in [[Cleveland|Cleveland, Ohio]] who in the mid-1950s became involved in the illegal gambling operations of mobster and racketeer [[Shondor Birns]], who dominated organized crime in the city.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Yardley |first1=William |title=Dollree Mapp, Who Defied Police Search in Landmark Case, Is Dead |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/us/dollree-mapp-who-defied-police-search-in-landmark-case-is-dead.html |website=The New York Times |access-date=1 November 2019 |date=9 December 2014}}</ref> On May 23, 1957, Cleveland police received an anonymous tip that a suspect named Virgil Ogletree might be found at a house that contained Mapp's apartment, along with illegal betting slips and equipment employed in a "[[numbers game]]" set up by Mapp's boyfriend.<ref>Zotti, Priscilla. ''Injustice for All'' (Peter Lang, 2005).</ref> Ogletree was involved in the Cleveland illegal betting world, centered in the city's [[Downtown Cleveland#Short Vincent|Short Vincent]] neighborhood.<ref>{{cite book|title=Cleveland's Short Vincent: The Theatrical Grill and its Notorious Neighbors|last=Dutka|first=Alan F.|date=2012|publisher=Cleveland Landmarks Press|isbn=9780936760322|location=Cleveland|pages=26–33}}</ref> Ogletree was wanted for questioning regarding his role in the bombing of the home of rival gambling racketeer [[Don King (boxing promoter)|Don King]] (who later became a major [[boxing]] promoter). Three policemen went to Mapp's home and asked for permission to enter, but Mapp, after consulting with her lawyer by telephone, refused to admit them without a [[search warrant]]. Two officers left, and one remained, watching the house from across the street.

Three hours later, more police officers arrived and knocked on the door. When Mapp did not answer, they forced the door open. Mapp asked to see their search warrant, and was shown a piece of paper, which she snatched away from one of the officers, putting it inside her blouse. The officers struggled with Mapp and recovered the piece of paper, which was not seen by her or her lawyers again, and was not introduced as evidence in any of the ensuing court proceedings. As the search of Mapp's second-floor apartment began, police handcuffed her for being belligerent. The police searched the entire house thoroughly, and discovered Ogletree (who was eventually cleared on the bombing charge) hiding in the apartment of the downstairs tenant. In the search of Mapp's apartment and in a footlocker in the basement of the house, the police found betting slips.<ref name=Mapp>{{ussc|name=Mapp v. Ohio|volume=367|page=643|pin=|year=1961}}.</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/363581/Mapp-v-Ohio |title=Mapp v. Ohio |last1=Duignan |first1=Brian |date=2012-05-25 |website=[[Encyclopædia Britannica Online]] |publisher=[[Encyclopædia Britannica Inc.]] |access-date=March 19, 2014}}</ref> They also found a [[pistol]] and several pornographic books and pictures, which Mapp said a previous tenant had left behind.<ref name=Mapp/> The police arrested Mapp, and charged her with a [[misdemeanor]] count of possessing numbers-game paraphernalia, but she was acquitted.

Several months later, after Mapp refused to testify against Birns and his associates at their trial for the attempted shakedown of King, she was prosecuted for possession of the pornographic books. Mapp was found guilty at trial of "knowingly having had in her possession and under her control certain lewd and lascivious books, pictures, and photographs in violation of 2905.34 of Ohio's Revised Code," and sentenced to one to seven years in prison. Mapp was convicted, even though prosecutors were unable to produce a valid search warrant. She appealed to the [[Supreme Court of Ohio]], which affirmed her conviction, because even though the search warrant's validity was doubtful and the police's search of her home was illegal, the police officers had not used brutal force against her, and so under the Supreme Court's precedents in ''Wolf'' and ''Rochin,'' the exclusionary rule did not apply. Mapp then appealed to the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]], which agreed to hear her case.

== Decision ==
On June 19, 1961, the Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision in favor of Mapp that overturned her conviction, and held that the [[exclusionary rule]] applies to state governments as well as to the federal government.

===Opinion of the Court ===
[[File:Official portrait of Associate Justice Tom C. Clark, Supreme Court of the United States (cropped).jpg|thumb|upright=0.95|right|Justice [[Tom C. Clark]], the author of the majority opinion in ''Mapp.'']]
Six justices joined the majority opinion written by justice [[Tom C. Clark]]. The Court observed that of the 30 U.S. states that had rejected the exclusionary rule at the time of ''Wolf v. Colorado'' in 1949, more than half had adopted at least a partial form of it in the intervening 12 years.{{sfnp|LaFave|2012|loc=§&nbsp;1.1(e)}} Regarding its statements in ''Wolf'' that other preexisting remedies, like private lawsuits and oversight of police forces, would be enough to enforce the Fourth Amendment, the Court said that experience had shown that "such remedies have been worthless and futile."<ref>''Mapp'', 367 U.S. at 652, quoted in {{harvp|LaFave|2012|loc=§&nbsp;1.1(e)}}.</ref>

The Court then overruled ''Wolf,'' and held that "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by that same authority, inadmissible in a state court."<ref name="ReferenceA">''Mapp'', 367 U.S. at 655, quoted in {{harvp|LaFave|2012|loc=§&nbsp;1.1(e)}}.</ref> Justice Clark stated that without the exclusionary rule, the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures would be merely "a form of words" that would be "valueless and undeserving of mention in a perpetual charter of inestimable human liberties."<ref name="ReferenceA"/> In addition, because prior cases had ruled that the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]] incorporated the Fourth Amendment against the states, the Court held that this reasoning applied equally to federal and state criminal proceedings.{{sfnp|LaFave|2012|loc=§&nbsp;1.1(e)}} In a frequently quoted passage, the Court wrote:

{{blockquote
|text=[O]ur holding that the exclusionary rule is an essential part of both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments is not only the logical dictate of prior cases, but it also makes very good sense. There is no war between the Constitution and common sense. Presently, a federal prosecutor may make no use of evidence illegally seized, but a State's attorney across the street may, although he supposedly is operating under the enforceable prohibitions of the same Amendment. Thus, the State, by admitting evidence unlawfully seized, serves to encourage disobedience to the Federal Constitution which it is bound to uphold.
|source=''Mapp'', 367 U.S. at 657.<ref>Quoted in {{harvp|LaFave|2012|loc=§&nbsp;1.1(e)}}.</ref>
}}

Clark concluded the Court's opinion by reiterating how the "ignoble shortcut" around the Fourth Amendment that ''Wolf'' had left open to state law enforcement officers had "tend[ed] to destroy the entire system of constitutional restraints on which the liberties of the people rest," and subsequently reversed the Supreme Court of Ohio's judgment against Dolly Mapp.

===Concurring opinion===
Justice [[Hugo Black]] joined the majority opinion, but also wrote a [[concurring opinion]] in which he stated that although he thought that the Fourth Amendment alone was not enough to justify the exclusionary rule, when the Fourth Amendment's protections were combined with the [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fifth Amendment]]'s protection against [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution#Self-incrimination|self-incrimination]], a resulting "constitutional basis emerges which not only justifies but actually requires the exclusionary rule."<ref>''Mapp'', 367 U.S. at 662 (Black, J., concurring), quoted in {{harvp|LaFave|2012|loc=§&nbsp;1.1(e)}}.</ref>

===Dissenting opinion===
Three justices [[Dissenting opinion|dissented]] from the Court's decision, and joined an opinion written by Justice [[John Marshall Harlan II]]. Harlan wrote that the Court should not have considered the Fourth Amendment issues in the case, because Mapp's conviction and the subsequent arguments at her appeals had focused on the legality of Ohio's anti-pornography laws, and not on the police officers’ [[Warrantless searches in the United States|warrantless search]] of her home. Harlan wrote that the Court's decision in ''Wolf'' should be upheld per the principle of ''[[stare decisis]]'', and that it did not require the entirety of the Fourth Amendment to be enforced against the states, but rather only the "principle of privacy which is at the core of the Fourth Amendment."<ref>''Mapp'', 367 U.S. at 679 (Harlan, J., dissenting), quoted in {{harvp|LaFave|2012|loc=§&nbsp;1.1(e)}}.</ref>

== See also ==
* [[Fruit of the poisonous tree]]

== References ==
===Citations===
{{reflist}}

===Works cited===
* {{cite book | first=Wayne R. | last=LaFave | year=2012 | title=Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment | edition=5th | location=St. Paul | publisher=Thomson/West | oclc=1041412063}}
* {{cite book | first=Carolyn| last=Long| year=2006 | title=Mapp v. Ohio: Guarding Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures | publisher=University Press of Kansas | isbn=0-7006-1441-9 }}
* {{cite book |title=Injustice for All: Mapp vs. Ohio and the Fourth Amendment |last=Zotti |first=Priscilla H. Machado |year=2005 |publisher=Peter Lang |location=New York |isbn=0-8204-7267-0 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/injusticeforallm0000zott }}

== Further reading ==
* {{cite journal |last=Stewart |first=Potter |year=1983 |title=The Road to ''Mapp v. Ohio'' and beyond: The Origins, Development and Future of the Exclusionary Rule in Search-and-Seizure Cases |journal=Columbia Law Review |volume=83 |issue=6 |pages=1365–1404 |doi=10.2307/1122492 |jstor= 1122492 }}

== External links ==
* {{wikisource-inline}}
* {{caselaw source
 | case = ''Mapp v. Ohio'', {{ussc|367|643|1961|el=no}}
 | cornell =https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/367/643
 | findlaw = https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/367/643.html
 | justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/367/643/
 | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep367/usrep367643/usrep367643.pdf
 | oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/1960/236
 }}
* [http://images.ulib.csuohio.edu/cdm4/results.php?CISOOP1=exact&CISOBOX1=Mapp%2C+Dollree+--+Trials%2C+litigation%2C+etc&CISOFIELD1=lc&CISOOP2=all&CISOBOX2=mapp%2C+dollree+--+trials%2C+litigation%2C+etc&CISOFIELD2=subjec&CISOROOT=all&t=s Archival source documents relating to the Mapp case]{{Dead link|date=August 2025 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }} at Cleveland Memory
* [https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/us/dollree-mapp-who-defied-police-search-in-landmark-case-is-dead.html Dollree Mapp, Who Defied Police Search in Landmark Case, Is Dead] - ''New York Times''
* [http://landmarkcases.c-span.org/Case/9/Mapp-V-Ohio "Supreme Court Landmark Case ''Mapp v. Ohio''"] from [[C-SPAN]]'s ''[[Landmark Cases: Historic Supreme Court Decisions]]''
{{Cleveland Division of Police|state=autocollapse}}
{{US4thAmendment|incorporation}}

[[Category:1961 in United States case law]]
[[Category:20th-century American trials]]
[[Category:American Civil Liberties Union litigation]]
[[Category:Cleveland Division of Police]]
[[Category:Cuyahoga County, Ohio]]
[[Category:Incorporation case law]]
[[Category:United States search case law]]
[[Category:United States privacy case law]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Warren Court]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court decisions that overrule a prior Supreme Court decision]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]
[[Category:Trials in Ohio]]