Mapp v. Ohio · ¶54

Only one thing emerged with complete clarity from the Irvine case — that is that seven Justices rejected the “shock-the-conscienee” constitutional standard enunciated in the Wolf and Rochin cases. But even this did not lessen the confusion in this area of the law because the continued existence of mutually inconsistent precedents together with the Court’s inability to settle upon a majority opinion in the Irvine case left the situation at least as uncertain as it had been before. Finally, today, we clear up that uncertainty. As I understand the Court’s opinion in this case, we again reject the confusing “shock-the-conseience” standard of the Wolf and Rochin cases and, instead, set aside this state conviction in reliance upon the precise, intelligible and more predictable constitutional doctrine enunciated in the Boyd case. I fully agree with Mr. Justice Bradley’s opinion that the two…

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.