What was the Supreme Court's vote in Mapp v. Ohio (1961) on the exclusionary rule for state trials?

• A. 9-0
• B. 6-3
• C. 7-2
• D. 5-3

Answer: (D)

The key idea is how the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures is applied to the states. Before this case, the exclusionary rule—that illegally obtained evidence cannot be used in court—was federal law (Weeks v. United States), and the Supreme Court had allowed states to impose or not impose it (Wolf v. Colorado). This decision, using the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, held that the exclusionary rule must apply in state prosecutions as well. In other words, if police violate the Fourth Amendment, evidence gathered cannot be used in state courts to convict someone. That’s why the ruling extended federal protections to the states.

The court’s vote was six to three, indicating a solid but not unanimous agreement, with three justices dissenting. This was a landmark shift in constitutional law because it strengthens constitutional rights nationwide by ensuring that state courts uphold the same safeguard against unconstitutional searches as federal courts. The other numerical options do not reflect the actual tally of justices agreeing with the ruling.