Summary
In Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), the Supreme Court reversed Dollree Mapp's conviction and held that evidence obtained through unconstitutional searches and seizures cannot be used in state criminal trials. The decision made the exclusionary rule binding on state and local law enforcement through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Legal Issue
Does the Fourteenth Amendment require state courts to exclude evidence obtained by searches and seizures that violate the Fourth Amendment?
Holding
Yes. The Supreme Court held that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is inadmissible in state criminal trials, applying the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Rule of Law
If police get evidence through an unconstitutional search, prosecutors generally cannot use that evidence in a state criminal trial.
Court Reasoning
Not yet summarized.
Impact for Officers
Mapp remains a foundation of search-and-seizure law. Modern cases have created exceptions and limits, including good-faith, inevitable-discovery, independent-source, and attenuation doctrines, but Mapp still anchors the basic suppression remedy for unconstitutional searches.
What Officers Can Do
Not yet summarized.
What Officers Should Avoid
Not yet summarized.
Common Misunderstanding
Not yet summarized.