Police broke into Mapp's home after being refused entry and began looking for a wanted person and some homemade weapons. The focus was instead shifted to something else based on her combative behavior after their fruitless hunt. Without a warrant, they decided to conduct a comprehensive search of her home and discovered betting slips, pornographic materials, and other paraphernalia. Despite being exonerated in court for a misdemeanor due to the quantity of paraphernalia, she was subsequently accused of possessing pornographic materials in violation of Ohio Revised Code 2905.34. (Thomte, 1962). She was later sentenced to a seven years term in prison, a decision that would, later on, be contested. The basis of appeal in the Supreme Court was the lack of probable cause by the police officers in their suspicion of possessing the pornographic materials. The fourth amendment, in her appeal, was supposed to be incorporated at the state level too besides the federal courts. The final ruling overturned the decision made by the lower court because the evidence was illegally retrieved and therefore inadmissible in the court of law (Baum, 1977). This decision has been of utmost importance in the contemporary society has been a point of reference in instances where suspects feel their rights were violated in the collection of pieces of evidence.
My Opinion
In my opinion regarding the case, the decision arrived at in the ruling was sufficient. The police officers used an excessive force and failed to follow the proper policies guiding the entrance of a suspect's home. The evidence obtained is, therefore, better not used in the conviction as the Cuyahoga County Commons Pleas had done. Ruling in favor of the police officers would have resulted in a serious backlash from the American citizens. It is not right to violate the constitution willingly and hope that things will work out for you and thus, a remarkable job was done. From the court statement, the central and controlling issue was to determine whether evidence seized illegally at the state level would be constitutionally admissible. The decision to reexamine the Wolf v. Colorado was justified to come up with laws that are tailored to meet the dynamic needs of the citizens.
The case was also an insight into the role played by the amicus briefs in its contributions to separate opinions. The brief of the ACLU amicus resulted to an uncertainty in regard to the best way in which the law can be applied by the justices. The first question that the case raised was how appropriate the Mapp would be used as a tool for spreading the idea of the exclusionary rule in prosecutions at the state level. On a closer look of the issue, this was the basis of the ideas put forth by Justice Harlan in his arguments. A similar view would later be taken by Whittaker and Frankfurter, a relatively stronger force in pushing the idea that the majority in the court had violated the long-standing decision of failing to weigh the issues Sua Sponte. From Harlan's point of view, an opinion is shaped that Mapp was not a good vehicle in the application of the exclusionary rule to the court proceedings at the state level. A much better way to have the rule effected at the states was not supposed to have taken the path. Instead, the Supreme Court would have rescheduled the case for rehearing and lay more emphasis on the significance of the precedent, the wolf. This amicus brief can be attributed to the case of the dissenting decisions by the justices.
Secondly, the case proved there was an uncertainty regarding the legal framework of exclusionary rules. Although the Supreme Court found that the exclusionary rule was applicable in the states' courts, there was no address of the appropriate legal foundation in regard to the 4th and the 5th amendment. Through the differences that existed in the justices, it was therefore not clear as to whether the law was best applied. Besides, even the majority in the ruling were not like-minded on the applicability of the exclusionary rule. The case further proves that the amicus briefs play an important transformative purpose in as far as lobbying the justices was concerned. The briefs are thus a source of ambiguity in the justice system which culminates to separate opinions on pertinent issues. The Supreme Court also had the task of straightening the theory of retroactivity in regard to rules guiding new criminal procedures (Bender, 1962). From this point of view, new constitutional rules on criminal procedure were not only applicable to direct review cases but also to the collateral attacks after prisoners filed their appeals.
Before the Mapp. v. Ohio ruling, challenges to fairness in the judicial process were evident. Such challenges included the failure of providing the counsel with indigents, and the inability to adequately shield the jury from those confessions that were coerced. It is thus clear that without counsel when facing the prosecutor, or getting tried by a jury after it has had the confessions of the defendant would result in an unfair trial. It is also true to argue that the case gave the Supreme Court the task of dealing with a criminal procedure that did not factor in the concept of fairness.
Were the Justices Wrong?
The decision arrived at by the justices was right. The fact that they passed the decision requiring the exclusionary rule to be followed by the states created an element of consistency in abiding by the requirements of the constitution. Although the exclusionary rule would make criminals to go scot free if there were any police errors, it would be the law that would henceforth set them free. They were, therefore, right in ensuring that the authorities at the state level were abided by the 4th amendment's requirement. Whenever states fail to strictly observe their laws, they are bound to fail. The stand taken by Justice Harlan was good although it did not hold significant weight. According to him, the majority had arrived at the wrong decision regarding the case at hand and had ignored the key pillars of judicial restraint as well as the stare decisis (Hutchinson, 2003). He further argued that the case was purely on the first amendment and there was no need to extend the exclusionary rule to the states. Such decision would, however, result in problems that would call for the Federal and the States to quickly reach a decision for the consistency and the wholesome applicability of the US constitution.
Importance of the Decision
The court decision would be important to the contemporary society and more significantly, the interest groups. The police officer would thereafter become observant to the fourth amendment and avoid insistence of conducting searches and seizures that were unwarranted. Besides, the courts would ensure that the evidence tabled before any case hearing was obtained using the stipulated ways in the laws. This has been a big relief to the modern society that would instead be subjected to police mistreatments in the name of searching for evidence. After the justices made the decision, a number of difficult cases would follow regarding the best applications of the exclusionary rule. A good example of such rulings which had a basis on the Mapp. V Ohio case was the Nix v. Williams. In this ruling, evidence retrieved the legal means would be admissible in the courts. The Burger Court in 1984 created what it referred to as the exception of good faith in the succeeding case of U.S. v. Leon (Whitebread, 1984). In this case, the pieces of evidence brought forth by the officers would be used in court on the grounds that the search was thought to be legal. These are some of the cases that would prove the case formed a good basis for the preceding cases.
The Judicial branch of the government has also been checking on the powers of the executive through the use of the exclusionary rule. Under the law, all the evidence obtained in an illegal manner has been inadmissible in the courts. The proponents of the idea were essential in the elimination of forms of police misconduct where the individual rights were under threats of possible infringements. An individual charged with crime has the right of challenging the evidence if there is a feeling that it was illegally obtained. On such basis, the suspect can file a motion to suppress the evidence, and the judge is left with the final decision of deciding whether the evidence in valid for trial. In most cases, evidence is the most relied upon element in the prosecutions. However, upon granting the motion to suppress the evidence, it becomes null and void, and the charges are automatically dropped. The Mapp. v Ohio case has been a good basis for the creation of informed American Society who are aware of their inalienable rights. There are a number of issues that the citizens should know that are connected to the case to avoid possible violations of their rights. Whenever one consents to any search, this automatically makes the evidence to be admissible and is wise to avoid consents to searches that are warrantless. A search that is regarded as being legal is the one in which the officer has a probable cause and is inclined to the thought one being engaged in crime. Furthermore, whenever one feels that evidence is illegally seized, the best thing is to get a lawyer and avoid any form of discussion with the arresting officer.
Importance of the Case to Interest Groups and Society
The judiciary in the US government grants the interest groups an opportunity to affect the laws made as well as set precedents. The method of approach used to target the judiciary differ from those utilized in dealing with other branches of government. The influence on the court is through the amicus curiae which is the Latin for friends of the court. The tools utilized here are the written and oral arguments used in the recent years. The Supreme Court ensures that the laws passed by the majority do not harm the minority and that the fundamental values of Americans are not undermined. The amici can alert the federal courts on instances where the interests of the underprivileged are under threat. The concerns of these groups are rarely are rarely brought to the attention of the court by the litigants.
Since the Mapp. v Ohio, the amicus party has been gaining credit in its role in shaping the opinion of the Supreme Court. Basing on the ideas of the fellow amici and the ACLU, the Supreme Court was in a position to establish the exclusionary rule. On a deeper scrutiny, it is true to argue that the needs of the interest groups would have been better served if Mapp persisted and prevailed in challenging what the state meant by the obscene material. The ACLU which appeared as amicus was favoring the exclusionary rule which would eventually be adopted by the court. Besides, it can be said that ACLU was the basis of the rationale utilized to shape the criminal justice in regard to this and other related crimes. The participation of the amicus including the one on a pro bono basis is essential in ensuring the interests of the underrepresented groups are well addressed before the court. This is particularly crucial in the development of the litigant amici, specifically created for the promotion of the commercial interests. Besides, it is worth mentioning the government's participation as amicus to address the needs of factions that are underprivileged.
The need to address the needs of the minority groups has since the Mapp's ruling, gained great importance. Dollree Mapp was part of the minority group of African origin, and the role of the amicus came out clear in standing with what they fight for. The illegal entry into her house by the white officers was not something unusual when considering the everyday lives of the black community and other racial minorities. The police officers in almost every part of the country were used as tools to keep the African Americans in their place. They would ignore those provisions against unreasonable arrests, search and seizures and the prevention of using the third-degree formula in interrogating suspects (Amsterdam, 1970). The black at this time can, therefore, be said to have little powers in fighting for their rights and seeking redress, especially through a political process. The interest groups have since then followed the legal proceeding to ensure that the rights of all Americans are guaranteed as per the stipulations in the constitution.
Importance of the Case to Parties Involved
The final decision arrived at in the case proved the importance of the parties involved and proved that the Supreme Court had significant powers over the executive branch. Dollree Mapp would thereafter be a significant and revolutionary key figure in the justice system for the decisions she made regarding her ruling (Knowlton, 1963). Her life turned out to be colorful and after a complete turn from a miserable teenage to a renowned person who rubbed shoulders with racketeers and boxers in Cleveland. Later on, she conducted her businesses in New York and rose to greater fame. She has remained to be an inspiration to other minority groups that might be suppressed and think that they have no rights to air their voices. More so, it was through her that the policing activities changed to respect the individual rights of the suspects without discrimination the lines of race, color, gender amongst other.
The Supreme Court also came out as a strong arm of the government. Although the legislative branch had formulated the policies on guiding the right form of punishment to those citizens who did not conform to the laws of possessing obscene materials, the Supreme ruled on situations where these laws would not apply (Managhan, 1975). Contrary to the expectation, Mapp would go scot free despite being guilty of possessing illegal materials. The Supreme Court emerged as the body that should be entrusted with protecting the Constitution, especially where the fundamental rights of the citizens are under a threat. The federal court further proved that any appeal brought at its table would be analyzed in a manner that is impartial, objective and without bias. This was regardless of the justices origins or prejudices that may result to favoring some parties whenever making a decision on an appeal at hand.
Mapp. v Ohio will remain one of the most referenced cases in the US judicial system and of great interest to scholars and lawmakers. The importance of the case would be emphasized for a long time before some changes would be made to introduce the concept of the good will. It should, however, be noted that the good will did not contradict the decision earlier on arrived at. Instead, it clarified the exclusionary law and stated the special occasions where a search would not go through the warrant path. These decisions have made the US have one of the best laws in the world that are specifically tailored to meet the needs of the citizens at all level. The case will not only remain important in the US setting but will also continue to inform judicial decisions in other countries that want to operate with the confines of the best provisions of the international laws especially the fundamental rights and freedoms.
References
Amsterdam, A. G. (1970). The Supreme Court and the Rights of Suspects in Criminal Cases. NYUL Rev., 45, 785.
Baum, L. (1977). Lower-court response to Supreme Court decisions: Reconsidering a negative picture. Just. Sys. J., 3, 208.
Bender, P. (1962). The Retroactive Effect of an Overruling Constitutional Decision: Mapp v. Ohio. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 110(5), 650-683.
Hutchinson, D. J. (2003). Two Cheers for Judicial Restraint: Justice White and the Role of the Supreme Court. U. Colo. L. Rev., 74, 1409.
Knowlton, R. E. (1963). The Supreme Court, Mapp v. Ohio and Due Process of Law. Iowa L. Rev., 49, 14.
Monaghan, H. P. (1975). The Supreme Court, 1974 Term. Harvard Law Review, 89(1), 1-281.
Thomte, D. L. (1962). Constitutional Law-Due Process of Law-Rules of Evidence-Admissibility of Illegally Seized Evidence. NDL Rev., 38, 117.
Whitebread, C. H. (1984). The Burger Court's Counter-Revolution in Criminal Procedure: The Recent Criminal Decisions of the United States Supreme Court. Washburn LJ, 24, 471.
