Mapp v. Ohio · ¶33

And only last Term, after again carefully re-examining the Wolf doctrine in Elkins v. United States, supra, the Court pointed out that “the controlling principles” as to search and seizure and the problem of admissibility “seemed clear” (at p. 212) until the announcement in Wolf “that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not itself require state courts to adopt the exclusionary rule” of the Weeks case. At p. 213. At the same time, the Court pointed out, “the underlying constitutional doctrine which Wolf established... that the Federal Constitution... prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by state officers” had undermined the “foundation upon which the admissibility of state-seized evidence in a federal trial originally rested....” Ibid. The Court concluded that it was therefore obliged to hold, although it chose the narrower ground on which to do so, that all…

U. S. Reports, bound volume
U. S. Reports, volume 367, at 643 (Library of Congress) · transcription: Caselaw Access Project
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.