The Exclusionary Rule

In 1957, obscene materials were found in Dolly Mapp's boardinghouse by police searching for the suspect of another — unrelated — crime. Mapp was taken to court and convicted for possession of pornography (which was then illegal). Arguing that the incriminating papers were seized without proper justification, her lawyers take the case to the Supreme Court, and in 1961, the justices overturn her conviction. At the heart of the issue is the "exclusionary rule," which bars the use of unconstitutionally seized evidence in court. The rule's purpose is to deter violations of the Fourth Amendment's right to privacy guarantee. It has previously been pertinent only on the federal level, but the Supreme Court's decision requires it to be applied at the state level as well. Very few cases are actually lost due to the exclusionary rule, even when evidence is thrown out. Still, the Mapp v. Ohio ruling is highly controversial. Some say that police are not in fact deterred by the rule, and others fear losing substantial evidence of guilt and allowing wrongdoers to go free. The precedent set by the decision will play a part in plea bargaining practices.