Linkletter v. Walker

The findings of the U.S. Supreme Court did not depreciate the legitimacy of the exclusionary rule as set forth in Mapp v. Ohio, but it held that the Constitution "neither prohibits nor requires retrospective effect." Conclusions in Mapp v. Ohio were significant because they established more stringent application of the exclusionary rule (defendants were not to be convicted based on evidence seized as the result of an illegal search). However, the justices for the majority held that there were no essential rationale which made the Mapp decision one which had to be automatically, retroactively applied to cases adjudicated before that ruling. Instead, the Mapp ruling was intended to give lower courts a measure of understanding of how to enforce the exclusionary rule as set forth in that decision. Nothing in Mapp obliged the Court to apply its conclusions retroactively.