Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

The Road to Mapp v. Ohio and beyond: The Origins, Development and Future of the Exclusionary Rule in Search-and-Seizure Cases

Potter Stewart
Columbia Law Review
Vol. 83, No. 6 (Oct., 1983), pp. 1365-1404
DOI: 10.2307/1122492
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1122492
Page Count: 40
  • Download PDF
  • Add to My Lists
  • Cite this Item
The Road to Mapp v. Ohio and beyond: The Origins, Development and Future of the Exclusionary Rule in Search-and-Seizure Cases
We're having trouble loading this content. Download PDF instead.

Notes and References

This item contains 200 references.

[Footnotes]
  • 1
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Learned Hand to A.T. Mason (Aug. 22, 1951)
    • A.T. Mason, The Supreme Court from Taft to Warren144 (rev. ed. 1968)
  • 2
    A.T. Mason, supra note 1, at 130
  • 3
    This reference contains 4 citations:
    • Illinois v. Gates, 103 S. Ct. 2317 (1983)
    • Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 387 Mass. 488, 441 N.E.2d 725 (1982), cert. granted, 103 S. Ct. 3534 (1983) (No. 82-963)
    • Colorado v. Quintero, 657 P.2d 948 (1982), cert. granted, 103 S. Ct. 3535 (1983) (No. 82-1711)
    • United States v. Leon, 701 F.2d 187 (9th Cir. 1983), cert. granted, 103 S. Ct. 3535 (1983) (No. 82-1771)
  • 4
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964)
    • Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964)
  • 5
    367 U.S. 643 (1961)
  • 6
    Appellee's Motion to Dismiss or Affirm at 4-5, Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)
  • 7
    People v. Mapp, 170 Ohio St. 427, 166 N.E.2d 387 (1960)
  • 8
    342 U.S. 165 (1952)
  • 9
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • 338 U.S. 25 (1949)
    • Harlan's dissent. Mapp, 367 U.S. at 674 n.5 (Harlan, J., dissenting)
  • 11
    B. Schwartz, Super Chief: Earl Warren and His Supreme Court—A Judicial Biography 391-98 (1983)
  • 12
    Id. at 393
  • 13
    Mapp, 367 U.S. at 672
  • 15
    This reference contains 3 citations:
    • N. Lasson, The History and Development of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution 51-105 (1970)
    • J. Landynski, Search and Seizure and the Supreme Court: A Study in Constitutional Interpretation 30-48 (1966)
    • Kamisar, Does (Did) (Should) the Exclusionary Rule Rest on a "Principled Basis" Rather than an "Empirical Proposi¬ tion"?, 16Creighton L. Rev.565, 572 (1982-1983)
  • 16
    N. Lasson, supra note 15, at 23-39
  • 17
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • J. Landynski, supra note 15, at 21
    • N. Lasson, supra note 15, at 25-27
  • 18
    J. Landynski, supra note 15, at 21-22
  • 19
    N. Lasson, supra note 15, at 43
  • 20
    Id. at 43-44
  • 21
    Id. at 44
  • 22
    Huckle v. Money, 95 Eng. Rep. 768 (K.B. 1763)
  • 23
    Wilkes v. Wood, 98 Eng. Rep. 489 (K.B. 1763)
  • 24
    19 T. Howell, A Complete Collection of State Trials and Proceedings for High Treason and Other Crimes and Misdemeanors from the Earliest Period to the Present Time 1406 (1814) (K.B. 1769)
  • 25
    N. Lasson, supra note 15, at 44-45
  • 26
    98 Eng. Rep. 489 (K.B. 1763)
  • 27
    Id. at 498
  • 28
    N. Lasson, supra note 15, at 51-78
  • 29
    Id. at 57
  • 30
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Id. at 58
    • J. Landynski, supra note 15, at 33
  • 31
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • J. Landynski, supra note 15, at 34-35
    • N. Lasson, supra note 15, at 57-62
  • 32
    N. Lasson, supra note 15, at 59
  • 33
    This reference contains 5 citations:
    • 1 B. Schwartz, The Bill of Rights: A Documentary History 231-379 (1971)
    • State provisions prohibiting the use of general warrants include the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776, para. 10
    • the Delaware Declaration of Rights of 1776, § 17
    • State provisions outlawing unreasonable searches and seizures include the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights of 1780, para. XIV
    • the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights of 1776, para. X
  • 34
    This reference contains 4 citations:
    • 1 Annals of Cong. 754 (J. Gales ed. 1789)
    • N. Lasson, supra note 15, at 99-103
    • J. Landynski, supra note 15, at 41-43
    • Kamisar, supra note 15, at 571-79
  • 35
    N. Lasson, supra note 15, at 103-05
  • 36
    This reference contains 3 citations:
    • Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886)
    • Adams v. New York, 192 U.S. 585 (1904)
    • Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914)
  • 37
    116 U.S. 616(1886)
  • 38
    Id. at621
  • 39
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 (1973)
    • Id. at 8
  • 40
    Boyd, 116 U.S. at 622
  • 41
    supra text accompanying notes 19-27, 29-32
  • 42
    Boyd, 116 U.S. at 633
  • 43
    Id. at 630
  • 44
    Id. at 633, 634-35
  • 45
    Id. at 634
  • 46
    Id. at 634-35
  • 47
    Id. at 639-41 (Miller, J., concurring)
  • 48
    192 U.S. 585 (1904)
  • 49
    Id. at 594
  • 50
    Id.
  • 51
    232 U.S. 383 (1914)
  • 52
    Respondent at 2, Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914)
  • 53
    232 U.S. at 398
  • 54
    Schrock & Welsh, Up from Calan- dra: The Exclusionary Rule as a Constitutional Requirement, 59Minn. L. Rev.251, 295-308 (1974)
  • 55
    251 U.S. 385 (1920)
  • 56
    Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 69-70 (1906)
  • 57
    Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (1920)
  • 58
    Silverthorne Lumber Co., 251 U.S. at 392
  • 59
    255 U.S. 298 (1921)
  • 60
    Id. at 305
  • 61
    Id. at 312-13
  • 62
    269 U.S. 20 (1925)
  • 63
    Id. at 34
  • 64
    Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 661-66 (1961) (Black, J., concurring)
  • 65
    338 U.S. 25 (1949)
  • 66
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Id. at 25-26
    • Kamisar, supra note 15, at 606-11
  • 67
    supra text preceding note 49
  • 68
    Wolf, 338 U.S. at 27
  • 69
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Mertens & Wasserstrom, Foreword—The Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule: Deregulating the Police and Derailing the Law, 70Geo. L.J.365, 378-80 (1981)
    • Kamisar, supra note 15, at 616
  • 70
    Wolf, 338 U.S. at 31
  • 71
    Wolf, 338 U.S. at 31
  • 72
    Id. at 41 (Murphy, J., dissenting)
  • 73
    364 U.S. 206 (1960)
  • 74
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Byars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28 (1927)
    • Lustig v. United States, 338 U.S. 74 (1949)
  • 75
    The Court's deliberations on the Elkins case are chronicled in B. Schwartz, supra note 12, at 344-46.
  • 76
    Elkins, 364 U.S. at 215
  • 78
    Schrock & Welsh, supra note 54, at 272-81 (1974)
  • 79
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Mapp, 367 U.S. at 657
    • Kamisar, supra note 15, at 621-27
  • 80
    Mapp, 367 U.S. at 662 (Black, J., concurring)
  • 81
    Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 393 (1914)
  • 82
    supra text accompanying note 54
  • 83
    Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298, 313 (1921)
  • 84
    Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20, 33-34 (1925)
  • 85
    Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463 (1976)
  • 86
    supra text accompanying note 50
  • 87
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • H. Schwartz, Retroactivity, Reliability, and Due Process: A Reply to Professor Mishkin, 33U. Chi. L. Rev.719, 750-52 (1966)
    • Allen, The Wolf Case: Search and Seizure, Federalism, and the Civil Liberties, 45Ill. L. Rev.1, 20 (1950)
  • 88
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Mapp, 367 U.S. at 648
    • Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 392 (1914)
  • 89
    Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 392 (1920)
  • 90
    Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)
  • 91
    Id. at 470
  • 92
    Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 222 (1960)
  • 93
    Id. at 223
  • 94
    Olmstead, 277 U.S. at 469-70 (Holmes, J., dissenting)
  • 95
    Id. at 470
  • 96
    Kamisar, supra note 15, at 567-71
  • 97
    Bush v. Lucas, 103 S.Ct. 2404 (1983)
  • 98
    5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)
  • 99
    Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 217 (1960)
  • 100
    supra notes 78-86 and accompanying text
  • 101
    This reference contains 3 citations:
    • Monaghan, The Supreme Court, 1974 Term—Foreword: Constitutional Common Law, 89Harv. L. Rev.1 (1975)
    • Dellinger, Of Rights and Remedies: The Constitution as a Sword, 85Harv. L. Rev.1532, 1540-43 (1972)
    • Schrock & Welsh, Reconsidering the Constitu¬ tional Common Law, 91Harv. L. Rev.1117, 1118 (1978)
  • 102
    Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 31 (1949)
  • 103
    Mapp, 367 U.S. at 652
  • 104
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Mapp, 367 U.S. at 648
    • Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 392 (1920)
  • 105
    Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 393 (1914)
  • 106
    supra notes 15-35
  • 107
    217 U.S. 349 (1910)
  • 108
    Id. at 373
  • 109
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • N.Y. Times, April 28, 1965, at 50, col. 1
    • Kamisar, The Exclusionary Rule in Historical Perspective: The Struggle to Make the Fourth Amendment More Than 'An Empty Blessing,' 62 Judicature 337, 349-50 (1979)
  • 110
    18 U.S.C. § 242(1976)
  • 111
    325 U.S. 91 (1945)
  • 112
    423 U.S. 362(1976)
  • 113
    103 S. Ct. 1660(1983)
  • 114
    Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)
  • 115
    42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1976)
  • 116
    436 U.S. 658 (1978)
  • 118
    Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 102 S. Ct. 2727 (1982)
  • 119
    U.S.C. § 1988 (1976)
  • 120
    445 U.S. 622 (1980)
  • 121
    This reference contains 3 citations:
    • Monell v. Dep't of Social Serv., 436 U.S. 658 (1978)
    • Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (1981)
    • supra text accompanying note 116
  • 122
    The Exclusionary Rule Bills, 1981-82: Hearings on S. 101, S. 751 and S. 1995 Before the Subcomm. on Criminal Law of the Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 97th Cong., 1st & 2d Sess. [hereinafter cited as Hearings] (1982)
  • 123
    Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 217 (1960)
  • 124
    supra text accompanying notes 12-13
  • 125
    Mapp, 367 U.S. at 660
  • 126
    Kamisar, supra note 15, at 627-33
  • 127
    381 U.S. 618 (1965)
  • 128
    Id. at 636
  • 129
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Id. at 634
    • Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 657 (1961)
  • 130
    394 U.S. 165 (1969)
  • 131
    Id. at 174
  • 132
    This reference contains 3 citations:
    • Id. at 174-75
    • Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978)
    • United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727 (1980)
  • 133
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • 414 U.S. 338 (1974)
    • Schrock & Welsh, supra note 54
  • 134
    supra note 73
  • 135
    Calandra, 414 U.S. at 348
  • 136
    Id. at 354
  • 137
    Id. at 349
  • 138
    422 U.S. 531 (1975)
  • 139
    Id. at 542
  • 140
    428 U.S. 433 (1976)
  • 141
    Id. at 457-58
  • 142
    428 U.S. 465 (1976)
  • 143
    Id. at 485
  • 144
    446 U.S. 620 (1980)
  • 145
    457 U.S. 537 (1982)
  • 146
    445 U.S. 573 (1980)
  • 147
    Johnson, 457 U.S. at 561
  • 148
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Wingo, Growing Disillusionment with the Exclusionary Rule, 25Sw. L.J.573, 583 (1971)
    • Wright, Must the Criminal Go Free if the Constable Blunders?, 50Tex. L. Rev.736 (1972)
  • 149
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484- 86 (1963)
    • United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268 (1978)
  • 150
    This reference contains 3 citations:
    • United States v. Lamas, 608 F.2d 547, 550 (5th Cir. 1979)
    • Coakley, Restrictions in the Law of Arrest, 52Nw. U.L. Rev.2, 2-15 (1957)
    • Peterson, Restric¬ tions in the Law of Search and Seizure, 52Nw. U.L. Rev.46 (1957)
  • 151
    Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971)
  • 152
    Desist v. United States, 394 U.S. 244, 258 (1969) (Harlan, J., dissenting)
  • 153
    Comptroller General, U.S. General Accounting Office, Impact of the Exclusionary Rule on Federal Criminal Prosecutions 14 (1979) (Rep. No. GGD-79-45)
  • 154
    National Institute of Justice, U.S. Dep't of Justice, The Effects of the Exclusionary Rule: A Study in California (1982)
  • 155
    This reference contains 6 citations:
    • Burger, Who Will Watch the Watchman?, 14Am. U.L. Rev.1,11 (1964)
    • Canon, The Exclusionary Rule in Failing Health? Some New Data and a Plea Against a Precipi- tous Conclusion, 62Ky. L.J.681, 688-91 (1974)
    • Davidow, Criminal Procedure Ombudsman as a Substitute for the Exclusionary Rule: A Proposal, 4Tex. Tech. L. Rev.317 (1973)
    • Inabu, Restrictions in the Law of Interrogation and Confessions, 52Nw. U.L. Rev.77, 78-79 (1957)
    • Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 415-17 (1971) (Burger, C.J., dissenting)
    • Irvine v. California, 347 U.S. 128, 136-37 (1954)
  • 156
    Oaks, Studying the Exclusionary Rule in Search and Seizure, 37U. Chi. L. Rev.665 (1970)
  • 157
    Id. at 708-09
  • 158
    supra text accompanying note 109
  • 159
    This reference contains 3 citations:
    • L. Edwards, Law Enforcement Training in the United States, 3Am. Crim. L.Q.89, 90 (1965)
    • Kamisar, Public Safety v. Individual Liberties: Some "Facts" and "Theories," 53J. Crim. L. & Criminology171, 179 (1962)
    • LaFave, Improving Police Performance Through the Exclusionary Rule—Part II: Defining the Norms and Training the Police, 30Mo. L. Rev.566, 593-96 (1965)
  • 160
    Hearings, supra note 122, at 19
  • 161
    428 U.S. 465, 490(1976)
  • 162
    392 U.S. 1 (1968)
  • 163
    Id. at 14
  • 164
    Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S 388 (1971)
  • 165
    supra text accompanying notes 85-86
  • 166
    supra note 92 and accompanying text
  • 167
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Wingo, supra note 148, at 585- 86, 592-93
    • Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 491 (1971) (Harlan, J., concur¬ ring)
  • 168
    Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 14 (1948)
  • 169
    S. 283, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. (1983); S. 751, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (1981)
  • 170
    Oaks, supra note 156, at 712, 753
  • 171
    Illinois v. Gates, 103 S. Ct. 436 (1982) (per curiam)
  • 172
    This reference contains 3 citations:
    • 103 S. Ct. 2317 (1983)
    • Id. at 2321
    • supra note 3
  • 173
    622 F.2d 830 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1127 (1981)
  • 174
    103 S. Ct. at 2340-47
  • 175
    Attorney General's Task Force on Violent Crime, Final Report 55 (1981).
  • 176
    Hearings, supra note 122
  • 177
    This reference contains 3 citations:
    • H.R. 2239, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. (1983)
    • S. 101, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. (1983)
    • Crime Control Act of 1983," H.R. Doc. No. 98-32, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. 136 (1983)
  • 178
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974)
    • supra text accompanying notes 133-37
  • 179
    supra text accompanying notes 138-44
  • 180
    Illinois v. Gates, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 2340-44 (1983) (White, J., concurring in the judgment)
  • 181
    Id. at 2343-44
  • 182
    Id. at 2344
  • 183
    Amicus Curiae Brief for the ACLU at 35, Illinois v. Gates, 103 S. Ct. 2317 (1983)
  • 184
    Id.
  • 185
    Mertens & Wasserstrom, supra note 69, at 399
  • 186
    supra text following note 109
  • 187
    Amicus Curiae Brief for the American Bar Ass'n at 29, Illinois v. Gates, 103 S. Ct. 2317 (1983)
  • 188
    Mertens & Wasserstrom, supra note 69, at 449-53
  • 189
    Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978)
  • 190
    Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31 (1979)
  • 191
    Illinois v. Gates, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 2332 (1983)
  • 192
    379 U.S. 89 (1964)
  • 193
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Id. at 97
    • Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 102 (1959)
  • 194
    Illinois v. Gates, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 2346 (1983)
  • 195
    Desist v. United States, 394 U.S. 244, 248 (1969)
  • 196
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • United States v. Johnson, 457 U.S. 537, 561 (1982)
    • supra text accompanying notes 145-47
  • 197
    Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967)
  • 198
    supra text following note 150
  • 199
    457 U.S. 537 (1982)
  • 200
    Id. at 560 (1982)
  • 201
    This reference contains 3 citations:
    • Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165 (1969)
    • United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727, 730 (1980)
    • United States v. Payner, 434 F. Supp. 113, 132-33 (N.D. Ohio, 1977)
  • 202
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Illinois v. Gates, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 2345 (1983)
    • Attorney General's Task Force on Violent Crime, Final Report 55 (1981)
  • 203
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Illinois v. Gates, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 2332 (1983)
    • Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 419 (1969)
  • 204
    Illinois v. Gates, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 2346