Case Citator › Wolf v. Colorado

Wolf v. Colorado

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
338 U.S. 25
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
227 of 227
Citing cases (total)
1,554
Treatment dates
1961–1965
Overruled
A reviewed court has overruled this case. Wolf v. Colorado is overruled as to its holding that the Fourteenth Amendment did not require state courts to exclude evidence obtained through unreasonable searches and seizures. All 227 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

Mapp v. Ohio imposed the exclusionary rule on the States, while Linkletter v. Walker later criticized the avenues for abuse created by Wolf's holding. Wolf's separate holding that the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures applies to the States was not disturbed. The 2 confirmed treatments are listed below; the other citing opinions applied Wolf, reported Mapp's act, addressed unrelated precedent, or contained rejected party arguments.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

1,554 later cases cite Wolf v. Colorado; 227 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Wolf v. Colorado?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled

  • Mapp overruled Wolf's refusal to require state courts to exclude evidence obtained through unconstitutional searches and seizures.

    Mapp v. Ohio · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Today we once again examine Wolf’s constitutional documentation of the right to privacy free from unreasonable state intrusion, and, after its dozen years on our books, are led by it to close the only courtroom door remaining open to evidence secured by official lawlessness in flagrant abuse of that basic right, reserved to all persons as a specific guarantee against that very same unlawful conduct. We hold that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by that same authority, 'inadmissible in a state court.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Criticized

  • Linkletter criticized Wolf's exclusionary-rule holding for creating an asymmetry that enabled abuse of the federal exclusionary rule.

    Linkletter v. Walker · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    The “asymmetry which Wolf imported into the law,” Mapp v. Ohio, supra, at 670 (concurring opinion of Douglas, J.), was indicated by a decision announced on the same day, Lustig v. United States, 338 U. S. 74 (1949), holding that evidence given to federal authorities “on a silver platter” by state officers was not excludable in federal trials. At 79. Wolfs holding, in conjunction with the “silver platter” doctrine of Lustig, provided wide avenues of abuse in the Weeks’ exclusionary rule in the federal courts.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Wolf v. Colorado and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace