Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Wolf vs. c olorado
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.


Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Wolf vs. c olorado


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Wolf
    VS. Colorado
    By: D’arce Delagarza & Brianna Smart
  • 2. Dr. Wolf, a Colorado physician, was suspected of performing abortions secretly, in violation of state laws. But the police were unable to obtain evidence to prove their suspicions. A deputy sheriff assigned to the case took Dr. Wolf's appointment book from his office, without the doctor's knowledge. The police contacted people listed in this appointment book about Dr. Wolf's medical practice. Through these interviews the police gained enough evidence to convict Wolf of conspiracy to commit abortions. Wolf said his constitutional rights had been violated. He pointed to the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” He also pointed to the 14th Amendment: “No state … shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
  • 3. Original Case: 1948
    Supreme Court Case: 1949
    Final Decision: 1949
  • 4. Final Vote Count of Supreme Court Justices
  • 5. Opinion of the Court
    Justice Felix Frankfurter agreed that the 4th Amendment was applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment. He wrote eloquently about the fundamental right of the individual to be secure against arbitrary intrusion by agents of the government. Frankfurter said, “The security of one's privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police is basic to a free society. The knock on the door, whether by day or by night, as a prelude to a search, without authority of law but solely on the authority of the police is inconsistent with the conception of human rights enshrined in the history and basic constitutional documents of English-speaking peoples.“ The Supreme Court held that 4th Amendment protection applies to searches by state officials as well as by federal agents.
  • 6. Dissenting Opinion
    Justice William O. Douglas argued that the exclusionary rule must be used to enforce 4th Amendment rights. Without the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence, he noted, the constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures are practically worthless.
  • 7. Constitutional Challenge Before the Court
    Writing for the majority, Justice Felix Frankfurter argued that protection from arbitrary intrusion by law enforcement is implied in the “concept of ordered liberty” and thereby incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment and applicable to the states
  • 8. Significance of this case
    This was the first time that 4th Amendment rights were incorporated by the 14th Amendment and applied to the states, a precedent that has been followed ever since the Wolf case. In 1961, in Mapp v. Ohio, the Court accepted the dissenting position of the Wolf case and applied the exclusionary rule to the states, thus overturning the Wolf decision.
  • 9. This doesn’t necessarily affect my life in anyway because it has nothing to do with me. I’m not a doctor, a police or a pregnant woman.
    It actually does kind of matter to me because Dr.Wolf was doing abortions secretly. To me, that is very unprofessional. I mean yes, he’s getting paid and he may be helping women out but in the long run, he’s putting his career and life in jeopardy by disobeying the law.
  • 10. This isn’t relevant in my life because I can’t relate to any of it but if I was ever in a situation similar to Dr.Wolf’s it would be relevant.
  • 11. The time period that this case took place in was the 40’s where World War 2 dominated most of it. It was a time where the Cold War began and our country was going through a lot of unemployment and national debt. It was a time period where the Supreme Court decided African Americans could vote.
  • 12.