Final American Legal History. History Term Paper.

Student’s Name
Instructor’s Name
Course
Date
Final American Legal History
PART 1
Mapp v. Ohio Case
This case happened in 1957, and the Ohio court did not consider the Exclusionary rule that disallowed the use of unconstitutionally obtained evidence. This was after police officers entered into Mapp’s house without a proper search permit. However, the case was revisited later on by the Supreme Court. This was a consideration of Mapp’s arguments that the Fourth Amendment rights were breached by the unlawful search. Mapp v. Ohio case began as a result of the conviction of Dollree Mapp, whose home was searched for a bombing suspect. They searched without a warrant, and even though a suspect was not found, she was found having scandalous material that was prohibited by the law in Ohio State. As a result, she was convicted based on that evidence. Based on freedom of expression, she appealed the conviction where an opinion was reached upon under Justice Tom C. Clark. It was agreed that any evidence that is obtained by going against the fourth amendment could not be used in a state court. The fourth amendment prohibits searching and seizing individuals and property unreasonably. It, therefore, upheld the exclusionary rule, which also prevents the implementation of any evidence acquired unconstitutionally in federal courts (Carolyn, 117). It was made applicable and incorporated to the states. The court ruled in favour of Mapp and said that the evidence was traced unlawfully without a search warrant. It also added that such evidence could not be used for prosecution of criminals in the state courts. This ruling began the Criminal Procedure Revolution and provided an extension to the Civil rights cases that the court should protect citizens from the mistreatment by the police powers.
The decision on Mappy v. Ohio case affected law enforcement in that it gave more strength to the fourth amendment. During the time the ruling was passed, twenty-four states were using illegally obtained evidence in their trials while 24 were excluding it. It gave the public more protection against unreasonable searches and prohibited the use of illegally obtained evidence. As a result, the exclusionary rule is today regarded as one of the fundamental aspects of constitutional law that is applicable in all U.S. states and territories. Studies have predicted an increase in crime rates since the exclusionary rule came to effect. Notably, this is because police officers use search alternatives that end up being less useful.
Additionally, the cost of police investigation tends to increase; therefore, they focus more on activities that do not require a warrant and neglect on those that do. The police adhering to the exclusionary rule means that they commit a few illegal searches. Notably, this means that few crimes will be investigated hence reduced the probability of apprehension.
The ruling on Mapp's case created a transformation in the culture of how law enforcement officers treat ordinary citizens, especially racial minorities. The ignorance of constitutional requirements against unreasonable arrests and searches and the use of very detrimental tactics when being questioned as a suspect. In the past, the constitution...