In the Mapp Vs Ohio case, the police officers forcibly entered Dollree Mapp’s home to search for a suspect without producing a warrant, although the suspect was not found, there were other materials which were found and when the materials were presented in the court, Mapp was charged for having illegal pornography (Stewart, 2003). During the search, Mapp was not even allowed to talk to her attorney who was at the scene during the search. Mapp latter appealed her conviction citing illegal manner in which the evidence was obtained; they were not admissible at the court of law[G1] (Oaks, 2014). The evidence was ru[G2] led not admissible by the Supreme Court, and the court further stated that [G3] the evidence was not admissible in any State Court because it was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. [G4] [G5]
In their ruling, the court argued that the although criminals could use the loophole of the Fourth Amendment to continue with their criminal activities, the Fourth Amendment was put in place to ensure that there is professionalism in policing, this is the rule which was named The Exclusionary Rule. The rule is clear on the fact that if the police violate your rights in obtaining the evidence, then the evidence is not admissible in court. When evidence is presented before the judge, and the eviden[G6] ce was illegally obtained, the layer can “Suppress” the use of the Evidence, and give the judge time to have a look in the manner in which the evidence was obtained.[G7] [G8]
There are exceptions to the exclusionary rule, one being that when the accused consents to the obtaining of the evidence, that makes the search unlawful, the accused has the right to refuse the request. The second exception is that when the officer has a probable course to search, and the officer has evidence believing that there is a possibility of engaging in criminal activity (Stewart, 2003). The problem with the second exception is that most police officers are keen on justifying the probable course, making them violate many people's human rights and freedom. [G9] [G10] [G11]
When considering a stop or frisk, a stop [G12] should have more weight as provided in the Fourth Amendment. Police officers should stop a vehicle when there is probable course such as a warranty. When the stop has been controlled, frisk should follow the rule of law and not violate the laws relating to human dignity.[G13] [G14]
Oaks, D. H. (2014). Studying the exclusionary rule in search and seizure. The University of Chicago Law Review, 37(4), 665-757
Stewart, P. (2003). The road to Mapp v. Ohio and beyond: the origins, development and future of the exclusionary rule in search-and-seizure cases. Colum. L. Rev., 83, 1365.