In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio.

One evening the police arrived at the home of DM demanding to be let in to conduct a search. They believed a suspect wanted for a bombing incident was inside. DM called her lawyer and prevented the police from entering her home until they produced a search warrant, which they did not have. After several hours, and the arrival of several more officers, the police broke down DM’s door when she did not answer a knock quickly enough. They met DM as they ascended her stairs and she again demanded they produce a search warrant. The police claimed to have one, and held up a piece of paper, but in reality, they did not, and the paper was fake. DM grabbed the paper away and put it in her shirt, and the police wrestled with her, reaching into her shirt to regain possession of the paper. Once the scuffle concluded, they handcuffed DM and searched her house, finding evidence of an illegal lottery and a book of pornographic imagery, though it was unclear who the items belonged to since DM was a landlord and had tenants.

DM was tried for possession of illegal gambling material, but was acquitted, so a year later she was tried for possession of obscene material and found guilty. DM appealed her conviction to the Ohio Supreme Court on the grounds that the search was illegal and the obscenity law unconstitutional, but the Ohio Supreme Court upheld her conviction. With nowhere else to turn, DM appealed her case to the United States Supreme Court.

The question before the court: following the decision in Wolf v. Colorado, where it was decided that state courts, unlike federal courts, could allow illegally seized evidence to be used in a court of law, should this precedent be overturned to preserve the 4th and 5thAmendments? Should state courts have to follow the same rules as federal courts?

Bonus question: is the Ohio obscenity law a violation of the 1st Amendment?

This is episode 3 of a 3-part series on the development of the Exclusionary Rule.