Mapp v. Ohio, Essay Example

The Supreme Court decision regarding search and seizure is an ultimate protection for citizens. It would be a troublesome world if law enforcement could enter a house or vehicle for whatever they wanted. There must be some form of privacy, and that was the meaning as well as intent of the Mapp v. Ohio ruling. I personally believe that the ruling is a good one and should not be changed. I would not change or overturn it based on individual’s rights and protection. It is a person’s right to have privacy and not live in fear about police or the military breaching their door without good cause. The way that the ruling works now is that the police must obtain the permission of the person before they search the individual’s possessions or home. The exception to this ruling is if the police have a warrant. Probable cause does give the right to police to do a cursory search of the area, if they have a good reason too or see something in plain view. For example, they can search a person’s immediate area in a vehicle if they smell alcohol or see some type of drug in that area.

The exclusionary rule prohibits the use of illegally obtained materials in the court process. This keeps the police from searching a person or their home based on other factors, in order to find something illegal. For example, an officer would not be able to stop a vehicle based on the drivers color, and assume that there was illegal materials in the vehicle, based on profiling. This is commonly referred to as racial profiling and is illegal. Again this ruling is to protect the individual and their rights. Police are inherently good and work within the legal confounds of the law, however they are human. They are often placed in precarious positions and can sometimes make mistakes. If there were no protections then it would not be illegal to search a person’s house based on a personal vendetta. Without the exclusionary rule, illegal material or information was gathered could be used against the person, even though it was illegally obtained. That would almost encourage the police to go ahead and do the search if they suspected that there was illegal items in a person’s possession. If they could bypass that and still use it in court, why wouldn’t they?

I do understand the perspective of law enforcement, when they do find some type of criminal behavior or material and are not able to use it. It would be most difficult to turn around and ignore it simply because it was not obtained, by the books. While it is frustrating and a shame that illegal activity could be continued, it still does not outweigh the fear of illegal search and seizures that could potentially take place. It is more important to ensure that all evidence is collected appropriately and the police are not engaging in unscrupulous behavior.

Personally, I feel that it is more important to ensure that citizens have their rights and are ensured protection in the world that we live. I do not advocate crime or being able to have illegal items that can be hidden from law enforcement, however I also do not want to be illegally searched based on a suspicion or mistake of a police officer. There has to be a fine balance and it is important to always error on the side of personal rights.

References

Aberle, Robert. Administration of Justice. [S.l.]: Kendall Hunt, 2012. Print.