All law students study Mapp v. Ohio (1961). In this landmark case, the Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule should apply to state criminal prosecutions. In other words, evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment is not admissible in court. Previously, in Wolf v. Colorado (1949), the Supreme Court refused to “incorporate” the exclusionary rule. (Merge isn’t quite the right term here, but it’s close enough.) Instead, Wolf The Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule applies only to federal criminal proceedings as part of the Supreme Court’s “oversight authority” over lower courts.
In lower courts, map Litigated as a First Amendment case. Dollree Map was arrested for possession of certain obscene materials. In fact, oral arguments focused extensively on First Amendment issues. It was not litigated as a Fourth Amendment case.
Mapp’s lawyers did not ask the Supreme Court to overturn Wolf. The Frankfurt judge noted that Mapp’s lawyers did not even mention Wolf in their profile.
FELIX FRANKFURT: Are we being asked to overrule this House’s Wolf case? I noticed it wasn’t even referenced in your briefing.
The Ohio Supreme Court didn’t even address these issues!
Felix Frankfurt: Well, it’s my understanding that in the Ohio case, the court’s decision was authoritatively expressed only in the syllabus, but I can look at the opinion and maybe get a sense of what the syllabus meant. . . . From what I found in my reading of Ohio State 170 Ohio State University, this issue was not mentioned in the opinion and certainly not in the syllabus. That’s right, isn’t it?
Judge Harlan explained that the only issue before the court was a First Amendment issue:
John M. Harlan II: Well, that’s the only question we have here, is whether the statute is constitutional, isn’t it?
Harlan asked Mapp’s lawyers point-blank whether they were asking the court to overturn Wolf. The lawyer said no.
John M. Harlan II: Well, that means you’re asking us to veto Wolf’s decision against Colorado?
AL Kearns: No, I don’t believe we are.
So who asked for Wolf Denied? The American Civil Liberties Union argued as amicus curiae.
Bernard A. Burkman: Mr. Chief Justice, it pleases the court. Before I get into my assigned territory, I want to say that the ACLU and its Ohio affiliate, the Ohio Civil Liberties Union, were very clear in their responses to questions posed to ACLU attorneys. We ask the court to reconsider Wolf v. Colorado and ruled that evidence illegally and unlawfully obtained should not have been admitted into state proceedings and that its introduction violated the federal Constitution, the Fourth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment. We have no hesitation in asking the court reconsider Because we believe it’s a necessary part of due process.
Judge Stewart asked if the ACLU asked the court to overturn Wolf. Lawyers for the ACLU argued that its interests were inconsistent with those of Dollree Map, but that didn’t matter.
Porter Stewart: Are you asking us to do this? Wolfe Revisitedor rely on Luo Qin against California?
Bernard Berkman: We ask the court to reexamine Wolfe. Our interests are not necessarily the same Mr. Justice Stewart, our claims are broader than those of the defendants convicted in this case.
The Supreme Court acted fully as requested by the American Civil Liberties Union as amicus curiae. The court rejected Wolf. Footnote 3 of the majority opinion states:
Other issues were raised on this appeal but, in our view of the case, these do not require decision. Although the appellant chose to raise what appeared to be a more solid ground for favorable disposition and did not insist on dismissal of Wolfe’s motion, An amicus curiae, who was also allowed to participate in oral arguments, did urge the court to overturn Wolf’s ruling.
Justice Harlan’s dissent was incensed by the court’s approach. He wrote:
[Obscenity] was the principal issue decided by the Supreme Court of Ohio, which court raised by petitioner’s declaration of jurisdiction and heard briefs [Footnote 5] and argue [Footnote 6] In this hospital. In this case, I think it’s fair to say that five members of this court simply “reached out” to overturn Wolf’s ruling.
[Footnote 5] Appellant’s statement Wolf was not urged to veto. Indeed, it Not even citing cases. Respondent’s submission relies solely on Wolfe to support the State’s argument that appellant’s conviction was not diminished by the admission that the police were the result of an allegedly unlawful search and seizure. The American and Ohio Civil Liberties Union’s brief, acting as amicus curiae, did “ask” the court to reexamine and overrule Wolf in a brief concluding paragraph of its argument, but without argument.. I quote this part of their introduction in full:
“The question raised in this case is whether evidence obtained through an unlawful search and seizure is constitutionally admissible for use in state criminal proceedings. We are aware of the view this Court has taken on this issue in Wolf v. Colorado, 338 US 25. Our purpose in this paragraph is to respectfully invite this Court to re-examine this issue and conclude that the concept of orderly liberty of individuals guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment necessarily requires that evidence unlawfully obtained in violation of that Clause be inadmissible within the State. be accepted.[Footnote 6] As stated in his brief, appellant’s oral argument counsel did not urge the denial of Wolfe’s motion. In fact, when the judge pressed him on whether he was not actually urging us to overrule Wolf, Counsel expressly denies any such purpose.
Whenever I hear anger about veto roe exist DobbsI want to return to map. There was no discussion of stare decisis at all, the Court “reached out” to overturn precedent that only amicus curiae asked to overturn, and did so in a single paragraph without any meaningful analysis. But the Warren Court adopted the “correct” doctrine of stare decisis. I guess if you remember the 1960s, you weren’t there.
More relevant today, holding map It was suggested that an invited amicus brief could petition the Supreme Court to overturn precedent and that the issue was not abandoned. In fact, for the first time, an amicus curiae was allowed to make this request to the Supreme Court even if it was not raised in a lower court proceeding. The Supreme Court apparently saw nothing wrong with the waiver or party presentation rules here. If the ACLU is right, amicus curiae invited to the lower courts could make similar requests, if only to put everyone on notice that the precedent is in doubt and to uphold it. .
