Year: Ended 1961 How the Case Arrived to Supreme Court: Dollree Mapp was a female employee in an illegal corporation run by a Cleveland kingpin Shon Birns. The police were informed of a possible possession of illegal material in relation to her place of work within her residence. The police thoroughly searched the property and discovered the illegal material along with the fact that she was allowing Shon refuge in her basement. However, they did so without a warrant. Dollree was sentenced one to seven years in prison. Mapp appealed her case to the Supreme Court stating the evidence that sentenced her was not found with probable cause. Constitutional Issue at Stake: The ideals of the fourth amendment were at stake in this issue, it’s purpose
The constitutional issue involved in this case involved the incorporation of the 4th Amendment's prohibition against the
On May 23, 1957, Cleveland police officers attempted to search Dollree Mapp’s house under the assumption that she had in her custody a suspected bomber and illegal gambling items. The police were turned away after Mapp requested that they first acquire a search warrant. Three hours later, the police returned to her home and forcibly raided Mapp’s house without a warrant, and found their search to be futile. Instead of the evidence they expected to find, the officers discovered pornographic materials in Mapp’s possession. To own such salacious pictures and books is an encroachment of Ohio’s state code, so Mapp was arrested and convicted for this violation. Dollree Mapp appealed her case to the Ohio Supreme Court on the basis that it was an intrusion on her rights defined in the Fourth Amendment.
The Fourth Amendment is one of the most important constitutional protections; however, several procedural issues may arise. As seen in this case, the validity of the search warrant was questioned as well as the extent of the protection afforded. A search may be illegal even if a search warrant was issued; probable cause is
In this case, I am presenting an individual citizens Fourth Amendment protection captivated from Jones and others individuals. The government started investigating Jones with a suspicions conspiracy of drug trafficking. A tracking device installed on the defendants’ vehicle after a terminated authorize a warrant permanent to the Government to search and install a GPA on Jones vehicle. Antoine Jones and others with the same conspiracy of the investigation were sentenced life imprisoned by the District Court Juries of Washington District of Columbia. The jury found Jones guilty of drug trafficking and possessions. The 12 amendments proposed in 1789, that constitutions the Bill of Rights under no circumstance to protections individualities
The facts of the case was the police officers came to Ms. Dollree Mapp home on May 23, 1957, on the suspicion that she was harboring a bomb suspect and illegal betting equipment. The police officers ask to enter her home, but she refused them entry into her home without a search warrant. The officers came back with a piece of paper, then proceeded to break into Ms. Mapp home to search for bomb suspect, but no suspect was found, but during the search officers found "lewd and lascivious" books; which was prohibited by Ohio state law to have any obscene material in your possession. It would later found out that it was an illegal search and seizure because the paper that the officer held was not a search warrant. Ms. Mapp was arrested, prosecuted, found guilty and sentenced for possession of obscene materials. Ms. Mapp tried to appeal the decision on the case, the Ohio Supreme Court recognized the unlawfulness of the search, but upheld the conviction on the grounds established by the Supreme Court decision on Wolf v.
Constitutional Issue -4th Amendment affirms "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
It is the fourth amendment that this paper and it states “ The right of the people to
Leaving states to find ways to protect their citizen’s 4th amendment as they try to control criminal activities in their jurisdictions proved to be a failure. Hence, in Mapp v. Ohio case in 1961, the Court applied the
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”. It consists of two clauses, the reasonableness clause which focuses on the reasonableness of a search and seizure and the warrant clause which limits the scope of a search. There are many views on how the Fourth Amendment should be interpreted, especially by today’s standards. The world has evolved significantly since the implementation of the Bill of Rights. As it evolved, time brought about numerous cases on the applicability of the Fourth Amendment. When plaintiffs are not satisfied with the decision of lower courts, they can
The U.S. amendment
One is the imposition on citizens Fourth Amendment rights. Another is the government’s interest for public safety. The extent to which an individual is protected by the Fourth Amendment should be determined by the risk the country is facing. In other words, if the country is under attack, society should give the government more latitude to access information in exchange for safety. However, the power given should be limited under check and balances to avoid overpower or abuse from the government. During times of war, clauses should be
Initially the Fourth Amendment was intended to create a statutory buffer between the U.S. citizens and the intimidating power of law enforcement. Today, the general concept and critical goal of the Fourth Amendment is
The Fourth Amendment is important not only to the citizens but for our law enforcement as well. The Fourth Amendment is still evolving today, as common and statutory laws change so does our Fourth Amendment. This amendment has come a long way and will continue to serve us in our best interests for as long as we live, whether we agree of disagree.
If none of these previsions have been taken into account I would have to say that I strongly disagree with the fourth amendment in this current date because we would applying a law that was created so long ago without any concern to how it should be updated.
For me The Fourth Amendment is important simply because I don’t want to get harassed by law enforcement but also as an American citizen I want to feel protected. Overall the Fourth Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights' significance are important, that many citizens today do not realize how much it protects us.