Wolf v. Colorado

United States law case

Written by

The Information Architects of Encyclopaedia Britannica

Last updated

July 15, 2026

Quick Summary

Wolf v. Colorado was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case decided in 1949. The Court affirmed that the right to privacy against unreasonable searches and seizures, protected by the Fourth Amendment, was fundamental. However, the ruling did not require state courts to exclude evidence obtained in violation of this amendment, leaving the application of the exclusionary rule to individual states. This decision was later overturned by Mapp v. Ohio in 1961, which mandated that the exclusionary rule apply to all state criminal proceedings.12

Summary created from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.

2 Britannica Sources

exclusionary rule
Mapp v. Ohio

Ask Britannica AI about this topic

Britannica doesn't have a full article on this topic, so we've curated a list of our relevant coverage.

- exclusionary rule
  Supreme Court held in Wolf v. Colorado (1949) that “security of one’s privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police—which is at the core of the Fourth Amendment—is basic to a free society.” However, that decision did not extend to state courts. During the next decade, approximately half of the…
  Read More
  Supreme Court held in Wolf v. Colorado (1949) that “security of one’s privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police—which is at the core of the Fourth Amendment—is basic to a free society.” However, that decision did not extend to state courts. During the next decade, approximately half of the…
  Read More
- Mapp v. Ohio
  …the Supreme Court’s decision in Wolf v. Colorado (1949), which recognized the right to privacy as “incorporated” but not the federal exclusionary rule. Because of the inherent vagueness of the Fourth Amendment, the scope of the exclusionary rule has been subject to interpretation by the courts, including the Supreme Court,…
  Read More
  …the Supreme Court’s decision in Wolf v. Colorado (1949), which recognized the right to privacy as “incorporated” but not the federal exclusionary rule. Because of the inherent vagueness of the Fourth Amendment, the scope of the exclusionary rule has been subject to interpretation by the courts, including the Supreme Court,…
  Read More

Felix Frankfurter
In the criminal case of Wolf v. Colorado (1949), for example, he spoke for the court in condemning illegal seizure of evidence by state officials, but he ruled that the “due process of law” clause of the 14th Amendment (1868) to the U.S. Constitution did not require a state court…
Read More
In the criminal case of Wolf v. Colorado (1949), for example, he spoke for the court in condemning illegal seizure of evidence by state officials, but he ruled that the “due process of law” clause of the 14th Amendment (1868) to the U.S. Constitution did not require a state court…
Read More
Frank Murphy
His dissent in Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), in which the court held that illegally seized criminal evidence was admissible in state (though not in federal) courts, was vindicated when a later court overruled the Wolf decision (Mapp v. Ohio, 1961).
Read More
His dissent in Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), in which the court held that illegally seized criminal evidence was admissible in state (though not in federal) courts, was vindicated when a later court overruled the Wolf decision (Mapp v. Ohio, 1961).
Read More
Stanley F. Reed
…voted with the majority in Wolf v. Colorado (1949) and Irvine v. California (1954), both of which ruled that illegally obtained evidence may be admissible in state courts, and upheld the conviction of (and denial of speech rights to) American communists who were arrested for violating the prohibition against advocating…
Read More
…voted with the majority in Wolf v. Colorado (1949) and Irvine v. California (1954), both of which ruled that illegally obtained evidence may be admissible in state courts, and upheld the conviction of (and denial of speech rights to) American communists who were arrested for violating the prohibition against advocating…
Read More