The decision in Mapp v Ohio 367 U.S. 643 (1961) is good law and there is no need for overturning it. The exclusionary rule applies under national law and in the same manner; it should apply to federal courts. What is good for the gander is good for the goose. This decision illustrates the importance of the Bill of Rights and the need for state laws to be unanimous with the Constitution of the United States of America. Having protection under the Constitution and denying the same under state law defeats the purpose of having the rights in the first place.
All federal courts must ensure that individual rights are protected from interference with the state. The rule of law ought to guide the actions of the police—not the rule of men. All states have the power to ensure law and order in society. It is the law that bestows this power upon the various machinery of the states, and it is the same law that determines the limits of the exercise of this power. With much power comes much responsibility. As Justice Clark correctly pointed out in this case, “nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its laws” (Aberle 143). It is only by following the due procedure of the law that justice can be achieved.
The contention that the state of Ohio did not expressly include the exclusionary rule in its law—therefore the rule should not be used in Ohio—does not stand. This is because all the laws of federal states emanate from the Constitution itself. Just because a particular federal law is silent does not mean that the rule recognized at the national level cannot be applied at the state level. The exclusionary rule emerged—as well put by the majority opinion in this case—due to the need to protect the person’s right to privacy. It has a constitutional basis under the fourth amendment. Consequently, an alteration of the fourth amendment should also be applied in practice.
In striking a balance between the interests of the society and those of the individual, the primary consideration is which person is more likely to suffer than the other if a court of law reached a particular decision. Whereas the public does have an interest in criminal matters to deal with crime, the individual is also entitled to the protection of his rights under the same law. The prosecution must bring all the facts of a case as fairly as possible in court—not to ensure a conviction but—for the interests of justice. Fair administration of justice entails the proper and legal acquisition of evidence.
In this case, the evidence of pornographic material found in the accused person’s residence would have been admissible, if a proper search warrant had been obtained before the search began. Her sentence would have been lawful and there would have been no need for reversing it. This is based on the argument that the law can limit a person’s right to privacy where there is suspicion that an offense has been committed or is likely to be committed.
The police can then search the person—his body or his property—for evidence of the commission of a crime. The law acts in favor of the individual through the requirement of a search warrant before the police can search the person or his premises. The law favors society by allowing the police to seize goods and arrest the person where they obtain evidence of the commission of a crime. The police would still be entitled to seize and charge the suspect—as long as the warrant is legal—where they find evidence of the commission or threat of commission of another crime not specified under the warrant.
To this extent, the decision in Mapp v Ohio stands. The exclusionary rule applies in federal courts in the same manner as it does in national courts. It is the point of balance that determines which side the scale tilts where evidence was illegally obtained.
Works Cited
Aberle, Robert. Small Police Departments: An Attitude Survey of the Citizens in Gwinnett County. Georgia: Georgia State University, 1979. Print.