Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
MAPP V.OHIO(1961)Jake and Will
Facts of the CaseThe police ofCleveland, Ohiowere giveinformation abouta suspect who wasclaimed to havebeen in a recentbom...
Facts of the CaseOne police stoodthere and theothers got awarrant to searchher house.Three hourspassed and morepolice show...
Facts of the CaseThe policethenknockeddown herdoor andentered herhome.Mrs. Mappdemandedto see thesearchwarrant.Jake and Will
Facts of the CaseThe policeflashed thewarrant and sheput the paper inher blouse.Police tackledher down torecover thewarran...
Facts of the CaseMrs. Mapp thenwas arrested,prosecuted andsentenced forhaving illegalpornographicmaterial in herhome. At c...
IssueDoes the illegallyobtained evidencefound in Mrs. MappsHome violate the 4thAmendment and beacceptable in court?Jake an...
PrecedentsOlmstead v. U.S.(1928): The Courtforbade theintroduction ofevidence if obtainedby governmentofficers through avi...
Decisions and ReasoningThe court ignored the 1stamendment and announced “allevidence obtained by searchesand seizures in v...
Effects and ConclusionWhen police search for anobject with a searchwarrant and obtain anotherobject, the individual cannot...
OpinionThe searchwarrant isfor a specificobject(Bomb).If the police findsomething else(PornographicTapes) it shouldNOT be ...
Bibliographyhttp://sites.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/compulegal/mapp_v__ohio_precedents.htmMapp v. Ohio (1961)http://www.infopl...
Jake and Will
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Government HN power point

229

Published on

For Honors government I had to create a powerpoint for the case "mapp v ohio".

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
229
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
10
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/clark/mapp_long.html
  • Transcript of "Government HN power point"

    1. 1. MAPP V.OHIO(1961)Jake and Will
    2. 2. Facts of the CaseThe police ofCleveland, Ohiowere giveinformation abouta suspect who wasclaimed to havebeen in a recentbombing case.A couple of policeofficers went to herfront door announcingthat she had been ahigh suspect in thiscrime. She did not letthem come in unlessthe police had asearch warrant withthem.Jake and Will
    3. 3. Facts of the CaseOne police stoodthere and theothers got awarrant to searchher house.Three hourspassed and morepolice showed upat the door withthe search warrantin hand. Whenthey tried to re-enter she did notanswer.Jake and Will
    4. 4. Facts of the CaseThe policethenknockeddown herdoor andentered herhome.Mrs. Mappdemandedto see thesearchwarrant.Jake and Will
    5. 5. Facts of the CaseThe policeflashed thewarrant and sheput the paper inher blouse.Police tackledher down torecover thewarrant.They thenhandcuffed herfor being“belligerent”. Afterthe house widesearch the policeofficers could notfind any evidenceof a suspectedbomber.Jake and Will
    6. 6. Facts of the CaseMrs. Mapp thenwas arrested,prosecuted andsentenced forhaving illegalpornographicmaterial in herhome. At court,there was noevidence of asearch warrant.Though, they didfind pornographicfindings in asuitcase near herbed. Mappclaimed it was nothers.Jake and Will
    7. 7. IssueDoes the illegallyobtained evidencefound in Mrs. MappsHome violate the 4thAmendment and beacceptable in court?Jake and Will
    8. 8. PrecedentsOlmstead v. U.S.(1928): The Courtforbade theintroduction ofevidence if obtainedby governmentofficers through aviolation of theFourth Amendment.Wolf v. Colorado(1949):The Court heldthat in a prosecution ina State court for a Statecrime, the FourteenthAmendment does notforbid the admission ofevidence obtained byan unreasonable searchand seizure.Jake and Will
    9. 9. Decisions and ReasoningThe court ignored the 1stamendment and announced “allevidence obtained by searchesand seizures in violation of theconstitution is, by the FourthAmendment, inadmissible in astate court.” No governmentlevel could use illegalevidence in trial.Jake and Will
    10. 10. Effects and ConclusionWhen police search for anobject with a searchwarrant and obtain anotherobject, the individual cannot get arrested.Jake and Will
    11. 11. OpinionThe searchwarrant isfor a specificobject(Bomb).If the police findsomething else(PornographicTapes) it shouldNOT be legal toarrest thesuspect.Jake and Will
    12. 12. Bibliographyhttp://sites.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/compulegal/mapp_v__ohio_precedents.htmMapp v. Ohio (1961)http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar19.html#ixzz2RI0G4EETJake and Will
    13. 13. Jake and Will
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

    ×