When police officers commit an unconstitutional search, should the evidence they obtained be usable in court? Prof. Paul Cassell of the University of Utah College of Law discusses the Supreme Court’s attempt to incentivize police officers to comply with the Fourth Amendment in Mapp v. Ohio.

*******

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues. All opinions expressed are those of the speaker.

Learn more about Paul Cassell:
https://faculty.utah.edu/u0031056-PAUL_G._CASSELL/hm/index.hml

Follow Paul Cassell on Twitter: @pgcassell
https://twitter.com/pgcassell?lang=en

*******

Related Links & Differing Views:

CPSAN Landmark Cases: “Mapp v. Ohio”
http://landmarkcases.c-span.org/Case/9/Mapp-V-Ohio

Case Western Reserve Law Review: “Search and Seizure and the Exclusionary Rule: A Re-Examination in the Wake of Mapp v. Ohio”
https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4029&context=caselrev

University of Colorado Law Review: “The Need to Overrule Mapp v. Ohio”
https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1181&context=articles

Emory Law Journal: “Resolving the Dilemma of the Exclusionary Rule: An Application of Restitutive Principles of Justice”
http://www.bu.edu/rbarnett/resolving.htm

Washington Law Review: “Exclusionary Rule, Deterrence and Posner’s Economic Analysis of Law”
https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol57/iss4/3/