Landmark Supreme Court Cases: Wolf v.

Colorado Explanation of the Law: The 4th amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures by requiring a warrant to be issued by a judge and supported by probable cause. The 14th amendment states that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Due process of Law - a person cannot be deprived of life or liberty or property without appropriate legal procedures and safeguards. Facts of the Case: The petitioner, Julius Wolf, was convicted of conspiring to commit abortions in the State of Colorado. After police interrogated a witness who had to be admitted to the hospital following complications during one of Wolfs abortions, the police searched his office without a search warrant and took a list of his patients. After interrogation, several patients admitted to having an abortion done by Dr. Wolf. Wolf claimed that under the 4th amendment, the evidence was illegally obtained through search and seizure. The trial judge allowed the evidence to be admitted and Wolf was charged with conspiring to commit abortions. Wolf appealed to the Supreme Court, stating that there was a violation of Due Process required by the 14th amendment. The Arguments: Wolf claimed that the evidence was illegally obtained under the 4th amendment, which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures by requiring a warrant to be issued by a judge and supported by probable cause. Wolf said that there was a violation of Due Process under the 14th amendment, and therefore he should not be convicted. The Holding: Justice Felix Frankfurter delivered the opinion of the court, holding that the 14th amendment does not forbid the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure. The Results: The Justices voted 6 to 3 against Wolf, and he was convicted of conspiring to commit abortions in the state of Colorado. Concurring Opinion: Justice Hugo Black stated that he would have be in favor to overturn the lower courts decision if he thought the 4th amendment barred against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the use of evidence so obtained. However, he stated that the federal exclusionary rule is not a command of the Fourth Amendment but is a judicially created rule of evidence which Congress might negate. Dissenting Opinion: Justice Murphy stated without exclusion, there is no sanction. Justice Douglas stated evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment must be excluded in state as well as in federal prosecutions; in absence of such exclusion, the Amendment would have no effective sanction. Overturned by Mapp v. Ohio (1961)