Impact of the Fourth Amendment on Mapp V. Ohio and Terry V. Ohio

Impact of the Fourth Amendment on

Mapp v. Ohio and Terry v. Ohio

        The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution was written to provide protection from unreasonable search and seizure.  This protection was to extend to the search and seizure of a person as well as a place of residence. The concept of probable cause plays a major role in the application of the amendment since it is required for the issuance of a search warrant but it is also required for searches, seizures, and arrests in the absence of a search warrant.  It is the distinguishing factor between a reasonable and an unreasonable or unconstitutional search and seizure.  The following analysis of the historic cases of Mapp v. Ohio and Terry v. Ohio will help to provide some insight regarding the Fourth Amendment.

        The case of Mapp v. Ohio resulted from the conviction of Dollree Mapp for the possession of obscene materials which police seized from her during an illegal search.  The officers had received a tip that a suspect in a bombing case was located at Ms. Mapp’s residence.  When they initially arrived at Ms. Mapp’s home requesting to search the house, she refused them access per her attorney’s advisement because the officers did not have a warrant.  The officers returned later and forced their way into the home with a fake warrant in hand and proceeded to search the home despite Ms. Mapp’s protests.  During the search the officers seized the prohibited obscene materials and Ms. Mapp was arrested and eventually convicted.  The conviction was appealed based on her Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure.  In 1961, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ms. Mapp and stated that any evidence seized during a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment is to be excluded from use as evidence in state and federal courts.  This became known as the exclusionary rule.

        In summary of Terry v. Ohio, John W. Terry was approached my Officer McFadden who had observed Mr. Terry and another individual engaging in suspicious conduct which appeared to be consistent with casing a store in preparation to rob it.  Officer McFadden identified himself, asked the men their names and proceeded to frisk them.  He found concealed loaded guns on both individuals and they were both charged with carrying a concealed weapon.  Mr. Terry was convicted and appealed on the basis that he was searched without probable cause.  The Supreme Court maintained the position that the search was legal and that given the violent nature of the potential crime, it was reasonable for Officer McFadden to suspect they were armed and to therefore check for weapons.

        Aside from the fact that the arguments for both of these appellate cases were based on the Fourth Amendment and that probable cause was an absent factor in each case, I did not see any other similarities to compare.  However, in contrast the most significant difference between the two cases was regarding the results of the appeals.  The conviction of Ms. Mapp was overturned since the seized materials were obtained unlawfully and therefore inadmissible as case evidence.  This rule was already effective at the federal level; so, it was furthered ruled to institute it at the state level as well.   Conversely the court maintained its position that Officer McFadden’s actions were based on reasonable suspicion which is sufficient justification for the frisking of Mr. Terry and the subsequent seizure of Mr. Terry’s gun.  The Mapp case was a clear and definite violation of the Fourth Amendment, whereas in Mr. Terry’s case the seizure was lawful and reasonable.  Essentially the absence of probable cause will not prevent police officers from proceeding in an investigatory capacity if they have reasonable suspicion instead.