The experience of California that such other remedies have been worthless and futile is buttressed by the experience of other States. In connection with this California case, we note that the second basis elaborated in Wolf in support of its failure to enforce the exclusionary doctrine against the States was that 'other means of protection' have been afforded 'the right to privacy.' 7 338 U.S. Significantly, among those now following the rule is California, which, according to its highest court, was 'compelled to reach that conclusion because other remedies have completely failed to secure compliance with the constitutional provisions * * *.' People v. While in 1949, prior to the Wolf case, almost two-thirds of the States were opposed to the use of the exclusionary rule, now, despite the Wolf case, more than half of those since passing upon it, by their own legislative or judicial decision, have wholly or partly adopted or adhered to the Weeks rule. at page 1362) and, in this connection that it could not 'brush aside the experience of States which deem the incidence of such conduct by the police too slight to call for a deterrent remedy * * * by overriding the (States') relevant rules of evidence.' At pages 31-32 of 338 U.S., at pg e 1363 of 69 S.Ct. The Court in Wolf first stated that '(t)he contrariety of views of the States' on the adoption of the exclusionary rule of Weeks was 'particularly impressive' (338 U.S. at page 344, and that such evidence 'shall not be used at all.' Silverthorne Lumber Co. It meant, quite simply, that 'conviction by means of unlawful seizures and enforced confessions * * * should find no sanction in the judgments of the courts * * *,' Weeks v. This Court has ever since required of federal law officers a strict adherence to that command which this Court has held to be a clear, specific, and constitutionally required-even if judically implied-deterrent safeguard without insistence upon which the Fourth Amendment would have been reduced to 'a form of words.' Holmes J., Silverthorne Lumber Co. People of State of Colorado, supra, 338 U.S. Thus, in the year 1914, in the Weeks case, this Court 'for the first time' held that 'in a federal prosecution the Fourth Amendment barred the use of evidence secured through an illegal search and seizure.' Wolf v. The obscene materials for possession of which she was ultimately convicted were discovered in the course of that widespread search.įinally, the Court in that case clearly stated that use of the seized evidence involved 'a denial of the constitutional rights of the accused.' At page 398 of 232 U.S., at page 346 of 34 S.Ct. The basement of the building and a trunk found therein were also searched. The search spread to the rest of the second floor including the child's bedroom, the living room, the kitchen and a dinette. They also looked into a photo album and through personal papers belonging to the appellant. Running roughshod over appellant, a policeman 'grabbed' her, 'twisted (her) hand,' and she 'yelled (and) pleaded with him' because 'it was hurting.' Appellant, in handcuffs, was then forcibly taken upstairs to her bedroom where the officers searched a dresser, a chest of drawers, a closet and some suitcases. A struggle ensued in which the officers recovered the piece of paper and as a result of which they handcuffed appellant because she had been 'belligerent' in resisting their official rescue of the 'warrant' from her person. She grabbed the 'warrant' and placed it in her bosom. A paper, claimed to be a warrant, was held up by one of the officers. It appears that Miss Mapp was halfway down the stairs from the upper floor to the front door when the officers, in this highhanded manner, broke into the hall. Meanwhile Miss Mapp's attorney arrived, but the officers, having secured their own entry, and continuing in their definance of the law, would permit him neither to see Miss Mapp nor to enter the house. When Miss Mapp did not come to the door immediately, at least one of the several doors to the house was forcibly opened 2 and the policemen gained admittance. The officers again sought entrance some three hours later when four or more additional officers arrived on the scene.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |