Every law student studies map vs ohio (1961). In this landmark case, the Supreme Court ruled that the exclusionary doctrine should apply to state criminal prosecutions. This means that evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in court. previously Wolf v. Colorado (1949) The Supreme Court refused to “consolidate” the exclusion rule. (The expression “corporation” is not exactly the right term here, but it is close enough.) Rather, A wolf Therefore, the exclusionary rule would be enforced as part of the Supreme Court’s “supervisory authority” over lower courts only with respect to federal criminal prosecutions.
In lower courts map The lawsuit was filed as a First Amendment case. Dollymapp was arrested on charges of possession of certain pornography. In fact, oral arguments focused broadly on First Amendment issues. This case was not litigated as a Fourth Amendment case.
Mapp's attorneys did not ask the Supreme Court to dismiss. A wolf. Judge Franker noted that Mapp's defense attorney did not even mention it. A wolf Briefly.
Felix Frankfurter: Are you asking this court to dismiss the Wolf case? I noticed that it's not even cited in your briefing.
The Ohio Supreme Court didn't even address this issue!
Felix Frankfurter: As I understand it, the court's decision when dealing with the Ohio case is expressed authoritatively only in the syllabus. But you can also look for comments to find out what the syllabus means. . . . . As far as I can tell from reading Ohio State, 170 Ohio State, that issue was not mentioned in the comments and certainly not in the syllabus. Right, right?
And Judge Harlan explained that the only issue remaining before the court is a First Amendment issue.
John M. Harlan II: Well, that's the only question we have as to whether this statute is constitutional or not. Isn't that right?
Harlan asked Mapp's attorney point blank if he was asking the court to dismiss. A wolf. The lawyer refused.
John M. Harlan II: So, you mean take out Wolf against Colorado?
AL Kearns: No, I don't think so.
Then who asked for it? A wolf Will it be dismissed? The ACLU claims amicus.
Bernard A. Berkman: Mr. Chief Justice, I hope the court will be pleased. Before I get into the territory assigned to me, I want to say that the American Civil Liberties Union and its Ohio branch, the Ohio Civil Liberties Union, are very clear about the questions they send to lawyers. Appellant, that We ask this court to reconsider its decision in Wolf v. Colorado. and finds that illegal and illegally obtained evidence should not be admitted in state lawsuits and that such evidence violates the Federal Constitution, the Fourth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment. We have no hesitation in making requests to the courts. think again This is because I believe it is an essential part of due process.
Judge Stewart asked whether the ACLU had asked the court to dismiss. A wolf. The ACLU's lawyers argued that their interests did not align with Dollree Map's, but that did not matter.
Potter Stewart: Are you telling us to do that? revisit the wolfOr are you counting on Rochin against California?
Bernard A. Berkman: We ask the court to reexamine Wolf. Our interests are not necessarily the same This is the same argument made by the defendant who was convicted in this case. Our argument is broader than that, Judge Stewart.
And the Supreme Court did exactly what the ACLU asked. the court dismissed A wolf. Footnote 3 of the majority opinion states:
Other issues have been raised on this appeal, but in the light of our consideration of this case these issues need not be decided. Appellant decided to urge what appeared to be more solid grounds for favorable disposition and did not argue that Wolf should be dismissed. The amicus curiae, who can also participate in oral arguments, urged the court to overrule Wolf's ruling..
Judge Harlan was outraged that the court took this approach. He wrote:
[Obscenity] This was the primary issue that the Ohio Supreme Court decided and briefed in its statement of jurisdiction for appellant. [Footnote 5] and insisted [Footnote 6] In this court. Given the circumstances, I think it's fair to say that five members of this court simply “reached out” to overrule Wolf.
[Footnote 5] Petitioner's Brief Did not call for Wolff's dismissal. Actually it is Didn't even mention the incident. Appellant's affidavit contains only Wolf's argument in support of the State's contention that appellant's conviction was not impaired by the admission of evidence as a result of the alleged unlawful search and seizure by police. The American and Ohio Civil Liberties Union's brief, as amici, “asked” the court to reconsider and dismiss Wolf in a short concluding paragraph of its argument, but without argument.. I quote the following section in its entirety from their summary:
“This case presents the issue of whether evidence obtained through unlawful searches and seizures may be constitutionally used in state criminal proceedings. We agree with the view this court took on this issue in Wolf v. Colorado, 338 US 25. We understand that our purpose with this paragraph is to allow this court to reexamine this issue and determine that evidence obtained illegally in violation of the concept of mandated freedoms guaranteed to individuals under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment may be admitted by the state. “We are respectfully requesting that a criminal lawsuit be concluded that this cannot be done.”[Footnote 6] As in his brief, appellant's counsel at oral argument did not urge Wolf to be dismissed. When pressed on the bench about whether he was actually urging us to take down Wolff, The defense explicitly denied that purpose..
Every time I hear anger over dismissal roe In ~ DobbsI think map. There was no discussion of the stare decisis, and the court “reached out” to overrule the precedent that only the amicus had requested to be dismissed, rejecting it in one paragraph without any meaningful analysis. But the Warren Court took the “right” approach in reaching its decision. If you remember the 1960s, you weren't there.
More relevant today map Amicus invited to participate suggest that they can ask the Supreme Court to overturn precedent and the issue is not abandoned. In fact, an amicus was the first to be able to make this request at the Supreme Court even though it had not been raised in a lower court case. The Supreme Court did not seem to see any problem with the waiver or party presentation rules here. If what the ACLU did was appropriate, it stands to reason that amicus invited to join lower courts could make similar requests. Just to let everyone know that the precedent is questionable and preserve the claim. This is a matter for the Supreme Court to consider.