Wolf v. Colorado
Citation and Court
338 U.S. 25 (1949) — Supreme Court of the United States
Facts
Wolf was a Colorado doctor convicted of criminal abortion. Evidence admitted at trial had been obtained by state officers in a search that violated the Fourth Amendment. Wolf argued both that the Fourth Amendment applied to the states and that illegally seized evidence should have been excluded.
Issue
Whether the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, and if so, whether the federal exclusionary rule must also apply to the states.
Holding
The Fourth Amendment’s core protection against arbitrary police intrusion is incorporated against the states, but the exclusionary rule is not constitutionally required and states need not apply it.
Rule / Doctrine
The right to privacy against arbitrary police intrusion is “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” and applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the exclusionary rule is a judicially created remedy — not a constitutional mandate — and states may choose other means of enforcing the Fourth Amendment right. Wolf was overruled in part by Mapp v. Ohio (1961), which required states to apply the exclusionary rule.
Significance
An early step in Fourth Amendment incorporation; notable mainly for the half-step it took and what it refused to do. Mapp v. Ohio overruled the holding that states could forgo the exclusionary rule, making Wolf primarily of historical significance.