Supreme Court Case: Mapp Vs. Ohio

Mapp v. Ohio, after reading the case file this case should not have ever made it to the Supreme Court or any court in the land. This case was doomed from the beginning due to police misconduct that has opened a crack in a door for criminals to slide through. Should the exclusionary rule be abolished? I do believe that court’s ruling regarding Mapp v. Ohio affect the day-to-day police work of our Officers. Peradventure, that the police are serving a legal warrant to pick up robbery suspect who also is a known drug dealer, because of the exclusionary rule from Mapp v. Ohio when the police arrive at the suspect address, they are not allow to search the home looking for drugs unless the warrant stipulates. Because of the Supreme Court’s ruling, Mapp v. Ohio complicates law enforcement with bureaucracy and suppresses simple law enforcement. …show more content…
Ohio did cause our police department and our officers to be more professional when enforcing the law, no shortcuts. Mapp v. Ohio was a ground breaking ruling by the Supreme Court, but a slap in the face of law enforcement. As police officers we must abide by the laws we are sworn to enforce, On the other hand, this ruling protects the citizen’s Fourth Amendment Constitutional rights. “Police officers are not controlled more rigorously by the exclusionary evidence rule than they are by force of their own respect for the law. If police obey the rules set by the community to govern police practice, they obviously will not obtain evidence illegally” (Paulsen,