Mapp Vs Ohio Essay

In May of 1957, police officers in Cleveland Ohio went to the home of Dollree Mapp in search of a suspect in a bombing case (the police were also seeking illegal gambling equipment at the residence.) Dollree Mapp refused to let the officers in without a search warrant; after placating her and thus seeking a warrant, two hours later additional officers arrived with a search warrant--a warrant Mapp took from the police and immediately stuffed into her dress. A minor scuffle ensued, and Mapp was placed in handcuffs for being noncooperative. Although the suspect or gambling material was not at the residence, the police did find pornographic material and subsequently arrested Mapp for possession of pornographic material. Mapp was prosecuted, held guilty and sentenced for possession of the illegal material, and further, no warrant was offered as evidence at trial. Mapp sought relief for the Cleveland police force's violation of her 4th Amendment unwarrantable search and seizure rights.

When analyzing whether or not there was a fourth amendment issue when the police searched Mr. Chester George’s house, two major issues arise. These are whether or not the police had authority to search Mr. George’s house based on the consent of his houseguest Mr. Shelling, and whether or not the police were allowed to enter the house of a third party on the basis of checking up on a parolee, where they then incidentally

In the case of New Jersey v. T.L.O. a young girl, T.L.O., had her purse searched, suspected of having cigarettes in her purse. The school officials of Piscataway High School uncovered cigarettes, miniature quantity of marijuana, and a list for students who owe her money. T.L.O. was now imposed charge of possession of marijuana. T.L.O. was not content and moved to terminate evidence discovered in the search, but was however contradicted her motion. She was sentenced to probation for one year, after confirmed guilty from the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of New Jersey. The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division proclaimed the contradiction of the process to terminate evidence. Holding that the exclusionary rule of the fourth amendment involves the search and seizures regulated by the school officials in public schools, the New Jersey Supreme Court interchanged.

Both the fourth and fifth amendment protect the privacies of individuals from governmental intrusion. Appellant Boyd complained that she was denied her constitutional right to testify. The right to testify comes from many amendments and clauses in the constitution such as the due process clauses, the Fifth, and Fourteenth amendment. The court held that “ the search for and seizure of evidence within an accused’s possession might well result in compelling the accused to be a witness against himself.” Then, the court reasoned that the search was unreasonable “ab initio” and it makes it a violation of the fourth amendment. Justice Black mentioned in his concurrence that if something is obtained illegally, it cannot be used again the appellant. The Boyd’s case was not the only case mentioned in the Mapp v. Ohio opinion. Additionally, Weeks v. United States (1914) was a case that determined the warrantless seizure of items from an individual is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

On May 23rd 1957, three police officers representing Cleveland Ohio came to the door of Miss Mapp’s residence with the suspicion of a bombing suspect hiding out in her home. Miss Mapp and her daughter lived in a two family two story home. Upon their arrival at the house the police knocked on the door and demanded entrance from Miss Mapp. However Miss Mapp didn’t open the door and instead asked them to provide a search warrant after she called her attorney. The officers advised their headquarters of the situation and established surveillance of the home over the next few hours. The officers once again sought entrance three hours later when they forced open one of the doors to the home and went inside. It was around this time that miss

In Mapp, Cleveland police officers had gone to the domicile of Dollree Mapp to inquire her questions concerning a recent bombing. The officers demanded entrance into her home. Mapp called her attorney and then refused to admit the officers in without a warrant. The officers became rude with Mapp, handcuffed her, and searched her home. They found allegedly obscene books, pictures, and photographs. Mapp was charged with violations of Obscenity laws, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to seven years in jail. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, but the U.S. Supreme Court overturned it. In Mapp, the Court held that the exclusionary rule appropriate to state criminal proceedings through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Before the Mapp ruling, not all states expelled evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Since Mapp, a defendant's claim of irrational Search and Seizure has become a matter of course in most criminal

Issue: Does the Fourth Amendment require that police officers, when arresting someone who was an occupant in a vehicle, show either a threat to officer safety or a need to protect evidence related to the crime they are being arrested for make it legal for an officer to conduct a search of that vehicle without a search warrant?

Her attorney argued that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal, warrant less search. Because the search was unlawful, he maintained that the evidence was illegally obtained and must also be excluded. In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that ?a reasonable argument? could be made that the conviction should be reversed ?because the ?methods? employed to obtain the evidence?were such as to offend a sense of justice.? But the court also stated that the materials were admissible evidence. The Court explained its ruling by differentiating between evidence that was peacefully seized from an inanimate object, such as a trunk, rather than forcibly seized from an individual. Based on this decision, Mapp's appeal was denied and her conviction was upheld.

At first initial contact the police rudely came to the door, Mapp did not allow the police force enter, stating that they didn’t have a search warrant. A couple of hours later the police came back and didn’t comply with the legal philosophy appointed. The police portrayed to have a valid search warrant even through they did not, it happened to be just an imitation of one. When she wanted to inspect the document she was quickly detained. They did not find what they were looking for and arrested her for the irreverent evidence. Law enforcement found a truck containing pornographic materials, which were illegal to have in Ohio at the time. This was what was used as an example as to when the fruit of poisonous tree applies because belongings where illegally obtained. This is why the Supreme Court utilized the exclusionary rule and saw this as a violation of the United States

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.

Ohio, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 19, 1961, ruled (6–3) that confirmation acquired touching base upon the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which denies "nonsensical inquiries and seizures," is not allowed in state courts. In this manner, it held that the government private guideline, which disallowed the utilization of illegally got proof in elected courts, was likewise appropriate to the states through the joining regulation, the hypothesis that most assurances of the elected Bill of Rights are ensured against the states through the due procedure provision of the 14th Amendment (which restricts the states from denying life, freedom, or property without due procedure of law). The Mapp controlling additionally upset to a limited extent the Supreme Court's choice in Wolf v. Colorado (1949), which recognized the privilege to protection as "joined" however not the government private principle. As a result of the inborn unclearness of the 4th Amendment, the extent of the private principle has been liable to translation by the courts, including the Supreme Court, which subsequent to the 1980s has bit by bit limited the scope of circumstances and the sorts of confirmation to which the standard

Mapp v. Ohio was a historical case in which the United States Supreme Court declared that all evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, could not be held against you in court ("Landmark Cases of the U.S. Supreme Court," 2015). The exclusionary rule and selective incorporation were applied to this case. The ?exclusionary rule? which prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution along with selective incorporation which is how the rights out lined in the Constitution apply to the states and the courts must acknowledge these rights. (The Definition of Selective Incorporation, 2015). This case was also significant due to the fact that the decision would open up the court to a number of difficult cases concerning how to apply the exclusionary rule.

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) Evidence that is acquired in violation under the Fourth Amendment is prohibited in a court of law and unconstitutional.

The purpose of this paper is to outline relevant case law as well other additional resources I will be referencing for my final course project on the Fourth Amendment. The sources within this paper are pertaining specifically to the section within the Fourth Amendment regarding unreasonable searches and seizures. I have included a brief for the following cases, Arizona v Gant, and Mapp v Ohio, as well as a synopsis for each additional resource I have chosen regarding my topic. These sources will aid me in both learning and understanding the Fourth Amendment of our United States Constitution.

Mapp v. Ohio, was a landmark case in criminal procedure, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures," may not be used in state law criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well, as had previously been the law, as in federal criminal law prosecutions in federal courts. The Supreme Court accomplished this by use of a principle known as selective incorporation; in this case this involved the incorporation of the provisions, as construed by the Court, of the Fourth Amendment which are literally applicable only to actions of the federal government into the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause which is literally applicable to actions of the states. On May 23, 1957, police officers in a Cleveland, Ohio suburb received information that a suspect in a bombing case, as well as some illegal betting equipment, might be found in the home of Dollree Mapp. Three officers went to the home and asked for permission to enter, but Mapp refused to admit them without a search warrant. Two officers left, and one remained. Three hours later, the two returned with several other officers. Brandishing a piece of paper, they broke in