Mapp v. Ohio

E15566

Fourth Amendment case United States Supreme Court case criminal procedure case landmark decision

Mapp v. Ohio is a landmark 1961 U.S. Supreme Court case that applied the exclusionary rule to the states, holding that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in state criminal prosecutions.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Disambiguation Statements Elicitation Referenced by

AI illustration

All labels observed (7)

Label	Occurrences
Mapp v. Ohio canonical	16
Mapp	2
Mapp v. Ohio (to the extent Weeks limited the exclusionary rule to federal cases)	1
Mapp v. Ohio decision	1
Mapp v. Ohio later applied the exclusionary rule to the states, limiting the effect of Wolf v. Colorado	1
State v. Mapp, 170 N.E.2d 387 (Ohio 1960)	1
majority opinion in Mapp v. Ohio	1

How this entity was disambiguated

This entity first appeared as the object of triple T126052 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.

NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: Mapp v. Ohio
Context triple: [Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, keyCase, Mapp v. Ohio]

A. Miranda v. Arizona
Miranda v. Arizona is a landmark 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the requirement for police to inform criminal suspects of their rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present during custodial interrogations.
B. Gideon v. Wainwright
Gideon v. Wainwright is a landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision that guaranteed the right to court-appointed counsel for criminal defendants who cannot afford an attorney.
C. Printz v. United States
Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
D. Katzenbach v. McClung
Katzenbach v. McClung is a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the federal government’s power to prohibit racial discrimination in local restaurants under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
E. Reynolds v. United States
Reynolds v. United States is an 1879 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the distinction between protected religious belief and regulable religiously motivated conduct, holding that the Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from compliance with otherwise valid criminal laws such as those banning polygamy.
F. None of above. chosen
G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.

NED2 Entity disambiguation (via description) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: Mapp v. Ohio
Target entity description: Mapp v. Ohio is a landmark 1961 U.S. Supreme Court case that applied the exclusionary rule to the states, holding that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in state criminal prosecutions.

A. Miranda v. Arizona
Miranda v. Arizona is a landmark 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the requirement for police to inform criminal suspects of their rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present during custodial interrogations.
B. Gideon v. Wainwright
Gideon v. Wainwright is a landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision that guaranteed the right to court-appointed counsel for criminal defendants who cannot afford an attorney.
C. Printz v. United States
Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
D. Katzenbach v. McClung
Katzenbach v. McClung is a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the federal government’s power to prohibit racial discrimination in local restaurants under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
E. Reynolds v. United States
Reynolds v. United States is an 1879 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the distinction between protected religious belief and regulable religiously motivated conduct, holding that the Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from compliance with otherwise valid criminal laws such as those banning polygamy.
F. None of above. chosen

Statements (49)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	Fourth Amendment case ⓘ United States Supreme Court case ⓘ criminal procedure case ⓘ landmark decision ⓘ
arguedDate	1961-03-29 ⓘ
chiefJusticeAtDecision	Earl Warren ⓘ
citation	367 U.S. 643 ⓘ
concurrenceBy	Hugo L. Black ⓘ William O. Douglas ⓘ
constitutionalProvision	Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ linked to: Fourteenth Amendment Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ
court	Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decisionDate	1961-06-19 ⓘ
decisionType	majority decision ⓘ
dissentBy	Byron R. White ⓘ Charles E. Whittaker ⓘ Felix Frankfurter ⓘ John M. Harlan II ⓘ
effect	incorporated the exclusionary rule against the states ⓘ made illegally obtained evidence inadmissible in state courts ⓘ
fullName	Mapp v. Ohio ⓘ
holding	Evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in state criminal prosecutions ⓘ The exclusionary rule applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ
joinedByInMajority	Earl Warren ⓘ Hugo L. Black ⓘ Potter Stewart ⓘ William J. Brennan Jr. ⓘ William O. Douglas ⓘ
jurisdiction	United States ⓘ linked to: United States of America
legalDoctrine	exclusionary rule ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy	Tom C. Clark ⓘ
overruledPrecedent	Wolf v. Colorado ⓘ
overruledPrecedentInPart	Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949) ⓘ linked to: Wolf v. Colorado
page	643 ⓘ
petitioner	Dollree Mapp ⓘ
priorHistory	State v. Mapp, 170 N.E.2d 387 (Ohio 1960) ⓘ linked to: Mapp v. Ohio
relatedAreaOfLaw	United States constitutional law ⓘ criminal law ⓘ evidence law ⓘ
relatedCase	Weeks v. United States ⓘ Wolf v. Colorado ⓘ
reporter	United States Reports ⓘ
respondent	State of Ohio ⓘ linked to: Ohio
stateParty	Ohio ⓘ
topic	criminal procedure ⓘ incorporation doctrine ⓘ search and seizure ⓘ
volume	367 ⓘ
yearDecided	1961 ⓘ

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (23)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution → keyCase → Mapp v. Ohio ⓘ

subject linked to: Fourteenth Amendment

Mapp v. Ohio → fullName → Mapp v. Ohio ⓘ

Mapp v. Ohio → priorHistory → State v. Mapp, 170 N.E.2d 387 (Ohio 1960) ⓘ

linked to: Mapp v. Ohio

Earl Warren → notableWork → Mapp v. Ohio decision ⓘ

linked to: Mapp v. Ohio

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution → landmarkCase → Mapp v. Ohio ⓘ

Incorporation doctrine → keyCase → Mapp v. Ohio ⓘ

Tom C. Clark → notableWork → majority opinion in Mapp v. Ohio ⓘ

linked to: Mapp v. Ohio

Tom C. Clark → notableCase → Mapp v. Ohio ⓘ

Weeks v. United States → influenced → Mapp v. Ohio ⓘ

Weeks v. United States → relatedCase → Mapp v. Ohio ⓘ

Weeks v. United States → overruledInPartBy → Mapp v. Ohio (to the extent Weeks limited the exclusionary rule to federal cases) ⓘ

linked to: Mapp v. Ohio

Dollree Mapp → involvedInCourtCase → Mapp v. Ohio ⓘ

Wolf v. Colorado → overruledBy → Mapp v. Ohio ⓘ

Wolf v. Colorado → relatedCase → Mapp v. Ohio ⓘ

United States Supreme Court cases → hasPart → Mapp v. Ohio ⓘ

Warren Court era → notableCase → Mapp v. Ohio ⓘ

Weeks v. United States → precedentFor → Mapp v. Ohio ⓘ

subject linked to: Weeks

Rochin v. California → relatedCase → Mapp v. Ohio ⓘ

Julius A. Wolf → laterRelatedCase → Mapp v. Ohio ⓘ

Julius A. Wolf → laterRelatedCaseSignificance → Mapp v. Ohio later applied the exclusionary rule to the states, limiting the effect of Wolf v. Colorado ⓘ

linked to: Mapp v. Ohio

Herring v. United States → relatedCase → Mapp v. Ohio ⓘ

Ardelia Mapp → hasFamilyName → Mapp ⓘ

linked to: Mapp v. Ohio

Elizabeth Mapp → alsoKnownAs → Mapp ⓘ

linked to: Mapp v. Ohio

All labels observed (7)

How this entity was disambiguated Show

Statements (49)

How these facts were elicited Show

Referenced by (23)

How this entity was disambiguated

How these facts were elicited