Constitutional Law-Search and Seizure-Retrospective Application of Mapp v. Ohio

Authors

Timothy D. Wittlinger, University of Michigan Law School

Abstract

On February 15, 1960, the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed petitioner's conviction for simple burglary. The conviction was obtained through the use of evidence unlawfully seized from petitioner in violation of the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution. In December 1961 the District Court for the Parish of West Feliciana denied petitioner's writ of habeas corpus filed after the Supreme Court decision of Mapp v. Ohio, which forbade introduction at state trials of evidence seized by state officers in violation of the fourth amendment. The denial of the writ was affirmed by the Louisiana Supreme Court, and certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court. A similar petition was then filed in forma pauperis in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, alleging exhaustion of state remedies. The court denied the petition. On appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, held, affirmed. The purpose of the Mapp exclusionary rule is deterrence of state officers from violation of the fourth amendment, and this purpose will be best served by prospective application of the rule. Linkletter v. Walker, 323 F.2d II (5th Cir. 1963).

Recommended Citation

Timothy D. Wittlinger, Constitutional Law-Search and Seizure-Retrospective Application of Mapp v. Ohio, 62 Mich. L. Rev. 1250 (1964).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol62/iss7/10