The Mapp v. Ohio case was one of the landmark cases in the supreme courts in 1961. During the US Supreme Court hearing, the judges ruled in favor of Dollre Mapp, who was by then a worker in the illegal gambling rackets (Street Law Inc., 2019). The judges got it right by overturning the conviction by 6-3 voting because the evidence that was used in the sentence was obtained after violating the Fourth Amendment that protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures (Galiano, 2011). For this reason, the judges were right because the evidence could not be used in the criminal prosecution as stated by the law. Besides, the circumstances in which Mapp had been convicted were obscene in that the police officers failed to produce the alleged search warrant that they had used to force their way into Mapp's house to her attorney during the hearing. Thus, the majority applied the exclusionary rule and declared the evidence inadmissible.
The case solidifies the fact that citizens are protected by the fourth amendment which means that authorities cannot access their houses or property without a warrant and even if they do, the evidence seized under such circumstances is inadmissible in state courts (Martinez, 2014). This means that law enforcement agencies have to follow the law in matters regarding search and evidence collection. Moreover, the exclusionary rule has been through rigorous debates and amendments to improve its relevancy in courts and is now required to be applied in all courts unlike before where the law was only applicable in federal courts. However, conservatives have primarily criticized the decision as they feel that criminals are given too much freedom, but on the other hand, liberals have applauded the decision because they think that fundamental rights of individuals should be upheld regardless of the circumstances. Conservatives also raise the concern of the possibility of the ruling leading to freeing of criminals, but the respect of human rights trumps all fears and concerns which is why the ruling panel affirmed that constitutional laws should not be ignored in as much as the conviction of criminals is crucial.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
References
Galiano, D. (2011). The Fourth Amendment: Unreasonable Search and Seizure . New York, NY: The Rosen Publishing Group.
Martinez, J. M. (2014). Mapp. In The Greatest Criminal Cases: Changing the Course of American Law . Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
Street Law Inc. (2019). Cases - Mapp v. Ohio . Retrieved from https://www.landmarkcases.org/cases/mapp-v-ohio
