Exclusionary Rule[A rule of evidence that excludes or suppresses evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's constitutional rights.]

QUESTION - Compare the court's reasoning in Wolf v. Colorado to Mapp v. Ohio

Wolf v. Colorado

In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not subject criminal justice in the states to specific limitations and that illegally obtained evidence did not have to be excluded from trials in all cases. The Court reasoned that while the exclusion of evidence may have been an effective way to deter unreasonable searches, other methods could be equally effective and would not fall below the minimal standards assured by the Due Process Clause. Civil remedies, such as "the internal discipline of the police, under the eyes of an alert public opinion," were sufficient.

Mapp v. Ohio

In an opinion authored by Justice Tom C. Clark, the majority brushed aside First Amendment issues and declared that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in a state court. The decision launched the Court on a troubled course of determining how and when to apply the exclusionary rule.

Justices Black and Douglas concurred.

Justice Stewart concurred in the judgment but agreed fully with Part I of Justice Harlan's dissent and expressed no view as to the merits of the constitutional issue.

Justice Harlan, joined by Justices Frankfurter and Whittaker, wrote a dissenting opinion.