Dollree Mapp Exclusionary Rule Case

On May 23, 1957, police officers showed up to a house in Cleveland and demanded to be let inside. They believed a man who was recently involved in a bombing was hiding inside. Dollree Mapp, the woman who lived in the home refused to let them in. Ms. Mapp explained to the officers that she needed to see a search warrant before letting them enter the home. They were unable to provide one, so they left. They came back a few hours later bringing more officers, and forced their way into her home. Ms. Mapp contacted her lawyer regarding the matter and asked one more to see some sort of warrant allowing them to enter the home. One officer threw up a piece of paper that he claimed was a warrant, Ms. Mapp grabbed it and hid it in her shirt. One officers had forced entry into the home,

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-3 vote in favor of Mapp. The Supreme Court stated that evidence obtained from an unreasonable or illegal search and seizure couldn’t be used against the accused in state court. Before the ruling, federal courts were required to suppress evidence gathered illegally. The decision extended the rule — known as the exclusionary rule — to state courts. The change has put continuing pressure on police departments to conduct investigations lawfully and brought increased scrutiny when their actions appear improper. Numerous cases have been affected by this, and sometimes they’re even thrown out. The exclusionary rule is very controversial. Critics argue that if the police act improperly or illegally they should face punishment for breaking the law, but evidence should not be excluded from court. In the past 25 years court rulings have made exceptions to the exclusionary rule in certain cases or circumstances when evidence was gathered illegally or improperly. For example, if a police officer appears to have made a mistake or error while having good intentions, when it followed incorrect legal guidance or relied on incorrect information provided by another