## Facts

- Victor Linkletter was convicted of simple burglary in Louisiana state court in 1959.
- After his arrest, police searched him at the station, took keys, and used them to enter and search his home and business without a warrant, seizing property and papers.
- The trial court admitted the seized evidence as incident to arrest, and the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed; the conviction became final before 1961.
- In 1961, the Supreme Court decided *Mapp v. Ohio*, requiring states to exclude evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
- Linkletter sought state and then federal habeas relief, arguing *Mapp* required exclusion of the evidence used to convict him.
- The Fifth Circuit concluded the searches were illegal but denied relief because *Mapp* did not apply retroactively to final convictions.
- The Supreme Court granted review to decide whether *Mapp* applied to convictions final before *Mapp* was decided.

## Issues

1. Whether the exclusionary rule announced in *Mapp v. Ohio* applies retroactively to state convictions that became final before *Mapp*.

## Decision

- The Court affirmed the denial of habeas relief.
- *Mapp*’s exclusionary rule did not apply to state convictions that were final before *Mapp* was decided.
- The Constitution neither requires nor forbids an absolute rule of retroactivity for new constitutional rules in criminal procedure; retroactivity is determined case by case.
- The relevant cutoff was the date of the *Mapp* decision, not the date of the search.
- Justice Black, joined by Justice Douglas, dissented, arguing constitutional rules should apply to past convictions because they state what the Constitution has always meant.

## Legal Principles

- New constitutional rules of criminal procedure are not automatically applied to cases already final; retroactivity depends on judicial assessment that accounts for finality, reliance, and public policy considerations.
- The exclusionary rule’s principal function was treated as deterrence of future unlawful searches and seizures, not a remedy designed to reopen otherwise final convictions.
- When a new rule does not primarily implicate the basic fairness of the trial process, the Court may decline to apply it retroactively on collateral review.
- For retroactivity purposes, the operative date is the issuance of the decision adopting the new rule; the rule applies at least to cases still pending on direct review at that time, but not necessarily to final judgments.

## Conclusion

The Court held that *Mapp v. Ohio*’s exclusionary rule did not retroactively invalidate state convictions that were final before *Mapp*, establishing a selective, policy-sensitive approach to retroactivity in criminal procedure on collateral review.


Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618 (1965)