Classifying Arguments-Mapp v. Ohio

The history of the Fourth Amendment shows that the right to privacy and security in one’s home is an important constitutional value. There is no reason that the right to privacy should be any less respected in a state court.

• Mapp

• Ohio

Police can still be dissuaded from conducting unlawful searches and seizures without the exclusionary rule. There are other methods of preventing unlawful searches and seizures, such as allowing civil suits against the police.

• Mapp

• Ohio

Since the decision in Wolf v. Colorado, many states passed laws that prevented the admission of evidence gained from an unlawful search or seizure during trials. Therefore, the circumstances changed enough that the Court should overturn the precedent from Wolf.

• Mapp

• Ohio

The exclusionary rule acts to discourage the police from conducting unlawful searches and seizures. Without extending the exclusionary rule to the states, there is little to discourage police officers from violating the Fourth Amendment.

• Mapp

• Ohio

In Wolf v. Colorado, the Supreme Court ruled that the exclusionary rule did not apply to state courts. The Court should follow that precedent here.

• Mapp

• Ohio

In Wolf v. Colorado, the Supreme Court decided that the exclusionary rule was not an essential part of the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, the exclusionary rule does not need to be expanded.

• Mapp

• Ohio