Assignment Details In 1961 The Search Of A Residence Of Doll

Assignment Detailsin 1961 The Search Of A Residence Of Dollree Mapp W

In 1961, the search of a residence of Dollree Mapp was done by police with no proper warrant to conduct the search. The search resulted in Mapp eventually being charged and found guilty of possession of pornography and sentenced to seven years in prison. Mapp appealed her conviction and it resulted in the Supreme Court reinforcing the Exclusionary Rule in their decision under the Fourth Amendment. This video examines the Mapp v. Ohio case (The Federalist Society, 2020): Using your reading assignment, the content above, and what you have learned about the Exclusionary Rule, answer the following questions: Explain why you believe or do not believe that exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule should be made. Select 3 exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule, and cite your reasons for their validity and any reason why the exceptions may be in error if you believe any of them are in error. Reference The Federalist Society. (2020, April 20). Mapp v. Ohio [SCOTUSbrief] [Video]. YouTube.

Paper For Above instruction

The case of Mapp v. Ohio (1961) holds a pivotal place in American constitutional law as it established the principle that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in criminal prosecutions (Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643). This ruling reinforced the Exclusionary Rule—a legal doctrine that prevents illegally obtained evidence from being admitted at trial—thus safeguarding citizens’ constitutional rights against improper searches and seizures. The case's significance prompts an ongoing debate regarding whether exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule should be permitted under certain circumstances. This essay explores the rationale behind allowing or opposing exceptions, analyzes three notable exceptions, and discusses their validity in the context provided by the Federalist Society’s depiction of the case.

To begin, the core of the debate centers on the balance between deterring unlawful police conduct and ensuring the pursuit of truth in judicial proceedings. The general consensus favors strict adherence to the Exclusionary Rule; however, critics argue that rigid enforcement might hinder justice in some instances. For example, exceptions are considered to allow the use of evidence obtained through legally questionable means if it ultimately benefits the pursuit of justice, or if the deterrent effect against police misconduct is deemed insufficient. I believe that exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule should be limited and carefully justified because overly broad exceptions risk undermining citizens’ Fourth Amendment protections.

Among the exceptions, the first is the "good faith" exception established by the Supreme Court, which permits evidence obtained through a defective warrant if law enforcement officers acted in good faith reliance on that warrant (United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897). This exception holds that if officers sincerely believed they were acting lawfully, the evidence should not be excluded, even if the warrant was ultimately invalid. I support this exception because it recognizes that police officers often rely in good faith on warrants issued by magistrates and should not be penalized for procedural errors beyond their control. However, critics argue that this exception can be exploited, leading to potential misconduct if officers manipulate or rely unreasonably on flawed warrants.

The second exception is the "inevitable discovery" doctrine, which permits evidence to be admitted if law enforcement would have discovered it inevitably through lawful means, even without the illegal conduct (Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431). This exception aims to balance the prosecution’s interest in securing relevant evidence against the rights of individuals. I endorse this exception because it emphasizes fairness and the pursuit of truth, acknowledging that illegal conduct does not always taint the ultimate discovery of evidence that would have been found anyway. Nonetheless, opponents might argue that it provides a loophole that diminishes the deterrent effect necessary to discourage illegal searches.

The third notable exception is the "public safety" exception, which allows the use of evidence obtained in violation of the Miranda rights if law enforcement officers reasonably believe that public safety requires immediate questioning and conduct (New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649). This exception recognizes the practical realities faced by police in emergencies—such as preventing an imminent threat or stopping a suspect from fleeing—and permits evidence to be used to protect the public. I find this exception valid given the need for prompt police action to protect lives and property; however, some argue it could be misused to circumvene constitutional protections.

In conclusion, while exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule serve practical purposes in law enforcement and justice, they must be narrowly defined and strictly regulated to prevent erosion of Fourth Amendment protections. The "good faith" exceptionupholds police reliance on judicial authorizations, the "inevitable discovery" doctrine promotes fairness and truth, and the "public safety" exception addresses emergencies. Nonetheless, the potential for abuse necessitates vigilant judicial oversight to ensure these exceptions do not undermine constitutional rights.

References

• The Federalist Society. (2020, April 20). Mapp v. Ohio [SCOTUSbrief] [Video]. YouTube.
• Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984).
• New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984).
• United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984).
• Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
• Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
• LaFave, W. R. (2017). Search & Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment. Thomson Reuters.
• Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009).
• Schulhofer, S. J. (2014). Fourth Amendment Law and Practice. University of Michigan Press.
• Leone, J. (2011). The Fourth Amendment and Search and Seizure. Oxford University Press.