Other Free Encyclopedias :: Law Library - American Law and Legal Information :: Notable Trials and Court Cases - 1941 to 1953
 

Wolf v. People of the State of Colorado - Significance, Due Process Represents A Living Principle, Only Exclusion Will Deter Violations, Impact

Petitioner

Julius A. Wolf

Respondent

People of the State of Colorado

Petitioner's Claim

That evidence, obtained illegally, should not have been used against Wolf at his state trial for a state offense because it violated his constitutional rights.

Chief Lawyer for Petitioner

Philip Hornbein

Chief Lawyer for Respondent

James S. Henderson

Justices for the Court

Hugo Lafayette Black, Harold Burton, Felix Frankfurter (writing for the Court), Robert H. Jackson, Stanley Forman Reed, Fred Moore Vinson

Justices Dissenting

William O. Douglas, Frank Murphy, Wiley Blount Rutledge

Place

Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

27 June 1949

Decision

Affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court of Colorado to let stand Wolf's conviction on the ground that, although the Fourth Amendment applied to the states, the states were not required to exclude evidence obtained unlawfully.

Related Cases

  • Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914).
  • Palko v. California, 302 U.S. 319 (1937).
  • McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943).
  • Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46 (1947).
  • Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).

Further Readings

  • Hall, Kermit L., ed. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
  • Levy, Leonard W., ed. Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. Vol. 4. New York: Macmillan, 1986.

Additional Topics

Wolf v. People of the State of Colorado - Significance

The decision in Wolf v. People of the State of Colorado advised that states should exclude evidence from trial if it was illegally obtained, but left the ultimate decision for such exclusion in the hands of the state. Wolf was convicted of conspiracy to commit abortion in Colorado. He challenged this conviction on the ground that the seizure and use of the evidence against him violated his constit…

Wolf v. People of the State of Colorado - Due Process Represents A Living Principle

Justice Frankfurter wrote the opinion for the majority. In considering the restrictions which the Due Process Clause imposed on the states regarding the enforcement of criminal law, Frankfurter noted that "this clause exacts from the States for the lowliest and the most outcast all that is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." Frankfurter felt that the requirements of due process of law are…

Wolf v. People of the State of Colorado - Only Exclusion Will Deter Violations

Justice Douglas wrote a dissenting opinion. He felt that the Fourth Amendment was applicable to the states and that evidence obtained in violation of it must be excluded from state as well as federal prosecutions. Without the exclusionary rule, the amendment would have no effective sanction. Justice Murphy also wrote a dissenting opinion. He noted that there were three remedies possible in the enf…

Wolf v. People of the State of Colorado - Impact

The 12 years following the decision in Wolf v. People of the State of Colorado showed that states without exclusionary rules had not found an effective means of deterring unlawful searches. Suits in tort proved to be a paper remedy rather than a useful sanction. In fact, during that time, several states adopted state exclusionary rules. In Mapp v. Ohio (1961), the Court accepted the minority posit…

Alger Hiss Trials: 1949-50 - Hiss Denies Communist Link, A "bombshell," A Seaplane, A Pumpkin, A Typewriter Proves Elusive [next] [back] Appendix to Appellants' Briefs - In The Supreme Court Of The United States October Term, 1952, Appendix To Appellants' Briefsthe Effects Of Segregation And The Consequences Of Desegregation: A Social Science Statementstatement Of Counsel

User Comments Add a comment…