ed ▁the ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁of ▁Ohio ' s ▁judgment ▁against ▁Dol ly ▁M app . ▁ ▁Con curr ences ▁Justice ▁Hugo ▁Black ▁joined ▁the ▁majority ▁opinion , ▁but ▁also ▁wrote ▁a ▁conc urr ing ▁opinion ▁in ▁which ▁he ▁stated ▁that ▁although ▁he ▁thought ▁that ▁the ▁Four th ▁Am end ment ▁alone ▁was ▁not ▁enough ▁to ▁justify ▁the ▁ex clusion ary ▁rule , ▁when ▁the ▁Four th ▁Am end ment ' s ▁prote ctions ▁were ▁combined ▁with ▁the ▁Fif th ▁Am end ment ' s ▁protection ▁against ▁self - inc rim ination , ▁a ▁resulting ▁" const itution al ▁basis ▁emer ges ▁which ▁not ▁only ▁just ifies ▁but ▁actually ▁requires ▁the ▁ex clusion ary ▁rule ." ▁ ▁D issent ▁Three ▁just ices ▁diss ented ▁from ▁the ▁Court ' s ▁decision ▁and ▁joined ▁an ▁opinion ▁written ▁by ▁Justice ▁John ▁Marshall ▁Har lan ▁II . ▁Har lan ▁wrote ▁that ▁the ▁Court ▁should ▁not ▁have ▁reached ▁the ▁Four th ▁Am end ment ▁issues ▁in ▁the ▁case ▁because ▁M app ' s ▁conv iction ▁and ▁the ▁subsequent ▁arguments ▁at ▁her ▁appe als ▁had ▁focused ▁on ▁the ▁leg ality ▁of ▁Ohio ' s ▁anti - p orn ography ▁laws , ▁and ▁not ▁on ▁the ▁police ▁officers ' ▁war rant less ▁search ▁of ▁her ▁home . ▁Har lan ▁wrote ▁that ▁the ▁Court ' s ▁decision ▁in ▁Wolf ▁should ▁be ▁u ph eld ▁per ▁the ▁principle ▁of ▁st are ▁dec isis , ▁and ▁that ▁it ▁did ▁not ▁require ▁the ▁entire ty ▁of ▁the ▁Four th ▁Am end ment ▁to ▁be ▁enfor