Analysis of Mapp v. Ohio - Case Study Example

In the actual trial, Mapp was found to be guilty. Mapp, later on, took her case to the US Supreme Court and filed an appeal based on the argument that the previous ruling violated her First Amendment Right which is the Right to the Freedom of Speech. In this particular case, the US Supreme Court sided with Mapp. However, the US Supreme Court did not focus on the First Amendment Rights and rather affiliated with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, while extending the search and seizure Exclusionary Rule to the state courts as well (Babcock, 2005, p. 1490). The motive behind this ruling was to exclude the disrespect for constitutional guarantees in the criminal procedure, by removing the incentives for their disregard and ignorance (Babcock, 2005).

Since 1914, the Federal Courts desisted from admitting illegally seized evidence. Yet, the State Courts enjoyed the liberty to decide whether particular evidence was to be admitted or excluded. In the given case the Supreme Court evinced that any evidence procured illegally could not be admitted in a State Court. The Supreme Court ruling in Mapp v. Ohio was indeed controversial as it placed the onus on the courts to decide whether a particular piece of evidence was procured legally or illegally.

This decision opened up the US Courts to a plethora of cases concerning the application of the exclusionary rule to the presented evidence (Grossman, 2006, p. 374). This decision ushered in a radical change in the US criminal procedure, extending an array of rights to criminal defendants (Grossman, 2006, p, 374). Indeed, culture played a predominant role in influencing the Court’s decision as this decision was based on the then popular perception regarding Constitutional provisions and liberties.

This ruling indeed left an unprecedented legal legacy of judicial activism in the arena of criminal justice and affiliated civil liberties. This case convincingly established that the Police that had entered Mapp’s premises without a proper search warrant had indeed acted improperly.