Exclusionary Rule

Origin and History of the Exclusionary Rule

In May 1957 in Cleveland, Ohio, police officers entered the home of Dollree Mapp looking for a suspect in a recent bombing as well as evidence of illegal gambling. After their extensive search, they found neither the suspect nor gambling paraphernalia. Instead, the police found material considered obscene. The State of Ohio had declared similar material illegal, and Mapp received a prison sentence of one to seven years after her conviction. The police did not have a search warrant nor did they present a reason for not having a warrant.

Mapp’s attorney, Alexander Kearns, appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court arguing the police had violated his client’s privacy and the evidence against Ms. Mapp was unconstitutional. The court upheld the conviction and allowed the legitimacy of the evidence found by the police despite the absence of a warrant.

Mapp’s attorney, with assistance from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), appealed this case to the Supreme Court of the United States. Benjamin Berkman, the ACLU attorney, urged the Court to consider the constitutionality of the search and seizure by the police and the allowance of this evidence in Court. Berkman noted federal courts disallowed illegally obtained evidence. In a 5-4 vote, the Court overturned Dollree Mapp’s conviction determining that illegally obtained evidence was not admissible in state or federal courts.

Under the exclusionary rule, if the police finds new evidence because of the illegally obtained evidence, the new evidence remains inadmissible as well. This doctrine is known as “fruit of the poisonous tree.”

Some exceptions to the exclusionary rule do exist: 1. Good Faith Exception 2. Independent Source Doctrine 3. Inevitable Discovery Doctrine 4. Attenuation Doctrine