All law students study Mapp v. Ohio (1961). This landmark case established that the exclusionary rule should apply to state criminal prosecutions, meaning evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in court. Previously, in Wolf v. Colorado (1949), the Supreme Court did not extend the exclusionary rule to state cases, only applying it to federal prosecutions as a supervisory measure over lower courts.
Mapp was initially litigated as a First Amendment case in lower courts, focusing on Dollree Map’s arrest for possessing obscene materials. The main arguments centered on First Amendment issues rather than Fourth Amendment violations.
During the Supreme Court proceedings, Mapp’s counsel did not request the overruling of Wolf, with Justice Frankfurter noting its absence from the brief. The Ohio Supreme Court also did not address the issues extensively.
While Justice Harlan clarified that the sole issue before the Court was the First Amendment matter, the ACLU, acting as amicus, explicitly asked for the Court to reconsider and overrule Wolf.
The Court ultimately decided to overrule Wolf as requested by the ACLU. Justice Harlan’s dissent expressed displeasure with this approach, highlighting the lack of emphasis on overruling Wolf in the appellant’s brief.
Reflecting on the controversy surrounding revisiting legal precedents like Roe in Dobbs, the case of Mapp serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in such decisions.
There was a complete lack of discussion on stare decisis, and the Court made a decision to overturn a precedent without much analysis, prompted only by an amicus request. However, the Warren Court handled stare decisis correctly. It seems that if you remember the 1960s, you weren’t really there.
Moving to the present day, the ruling in Mapp indicates that an invited Amicus can request the Supreme Court to overturn a precedent without it being considered waived. The Amicus in this case was allowed to make such a request for the first time before the Supreme Court, even though it was not brought up in the lower court proceedings. The Supreme Court did not appear to have any issue with waiver or the party presentation rule in this situation. If the ACLU’s actions were deemed appropriate, it could be possible for an invited amicus in lower courts to make a similar request, if only to alert everyone that a precedent is in question and to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review.
Source link
