The fourth amendment of the United States’ constitution was intended to dissolve fear of the malpractice of power initially used by relentless the British soldiers prior to the American Revolution; by ultimately abolishing the use of general warrants and warrantless searches. This amendment also led to the creation of the Exclusionary Rule, which affirms that any evidence found illegally and not previously stated on a warrant may not be used as evidence in a court of law. This rule initially originated in 1913’s Weeks v. United States. Later incorporated in 1961 with the Supreme Court Case of Mapp v. Ohio. In which, Dollree Mapp was believed to be in possession of illegal betting slips, equipment employed in a ‘numbers game’, and to be housing fugitive Virgil Ogletree. Police officers asked to enter her home, when she refused this request, they returned with a warrant listing everything they were to search for. During this search, the police found a pistol and multiple accounts of child pornography. However, this contraband was not outlined on the original warrant and Mapp was aquitted of the possession. The exclusionary rule and the protection of Mapp’s fourth amendment rights in this situation allowed her to go free. Although, there are many instances in today’s society where powers by law enforcement are still abused and there is corruption in a lot of aspects of power. But, the initial intent of the fourth amendment was to avoid those situations, and these instances will never be perfect, because no human being is, this amendment and these clauses are implemented to TRY and prevent malpractices of power. Several questions arise from this situation and many others much like it; how is it fair that this woman who knowingly and willingly committed a heinous crime was able to walk free? Although the concept of the exclusionary rule is effective and protects those wrongly accused, does it simultaneously also give leeway for real criminals to roam free?
(PAS #1)
I enjoyed reading your blog post! The Exclusionary rule has both good and bad features, but as you mentioned in your post, the rule can be twisted and result in bad outcomes. Although the rule seems as if it would be useful, there are flaws that can cause a bigger problem than there was. Obviously, in the Mapp v. Ohio case, the evidence found in the woman’s house is very suspicious, but due to the Exclusionary rule, it could not be used against her. This scenario can happen to other people, allowing guilty people to walk free, which is a huge problem.
I think that you are addressing an important question. Given that the law is important and it is illegal for officers to search without a warrant, I think that it is important to consider the possible threats that can’t be contained. It is that grey area in which giving too much power to the police will result in an abuse of power, but also could lead to some criminals being able to work their way around. I think that she should’ve been arrested because there was clear evidence of danger. It seems unreasonable for evidence to be dismissed just because it wasn’t part of the search warrant. The law enforcement has to prove criminals guilty before prosecuting them which can be dangerous if they can’t submit crucial evidence. There are some exceptions, but there has to be clear and present danger.