Slate.com: “Mapp v. Ohio turns 50″

Beating me to the punch, on Slate.com: Mapp v. Ohio turns 50 / If a moderate Texan could love the exclusionary rule, why can’t judicial conservatives? by Alexander Wohl:

An important measure of success is resilience in the face of attack. If so, the achievement of the Supreme Court in Mapp v. Ohio—the decision spelling out the modern meaning of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against “unreasonable searches and seizures”—was a singular accomplishment. The Mapp decision celebrates its 50th anniversary on June 19 and conservative judicial activists, still busily trying to get it overturned, have entirely misunderstood that it represents constitutional fidelity and adherence to the rule of law at its best.

Under siege by conservatives since the moment it was decided, Mapp provided for the first time that the exclusionary rule—barring evidence seized without a search warrant—applied to state prosecutions. (Like all provisions of the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment applies only to actions by the federal government, unless the court has “incorporated” it through the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.) Today, the assault on Mapp continues, led by the current Supreme Court’s conservative bloc. But that attack is misplaced, given that the opinion, written by the moderate Justice Tom C. Clark, offers a model for how true conservatives should apply the broad language and meaning of the Constitution.

mapp

This is Dolly Mapp. I have a different picture of Dolly Mapp from a dear friend in Oregon in my office given me years ago. TruTV has a webpage devoted to Dolly Mapp.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.