Ohio V. United States In Violations From The Constitution

Ohio V. United States in Violations from the Constitution
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. The police seized a few papers from Freemont
Weeks's home and he was charged with transporting lottery tickets through the mail. These papers were taken from his home without a warrant. Weeks
asked that his papers be returned to him. This case is another example of the violation of the fourth amendment. The opinion giving in this case agreed
that the constitution protects the rights of the citizens unless someone committed a crime. Therefore, the government has the permission to restrict
someone's
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Mapp Vs Ohio Essay
From March 29, 1961, to July 19, 1961, the landmark Supreme Court case, Mapp vs Ohio was heard. The appellant was suspected assailant to a
bombing, Dollree Mapp, and the Respondent, the State of Ohio. This case was about an unwarranted search on the appellant's property and during
that search, the police found some disturbing and obscene material. Dollree Mapp appealed her conviction on the basis of freedom of expression. The
issue at hand was whether the unlawfully confiscated materials were protected by the First Amendment and if evidence obtained in the search which
violates the Fourth Amendment should be admitted in court as evidence. The verdict of Mapp vs Ohio was six to three in favor of Dollree Mapp.
After this, the exclusionary rule was put in place, the rules establish that all evidence obtained must be legally ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
Police came up to her house and asked to check her house if she were to harbor any criminals, she denied their request. Then, they sat in her house
and began surveillance for a few hours. They forcibly entered her house without a warrant to corroborate any findings. "Although no suspect was
found, officers did discover certain allegedly "lewd and lascivious" books and pictures, the possession of which was prohibited under Ohio state law"
(Duignan). Dollree Mapp was convicted of violating the law on the basis of evidence, when she appealed to the Ohio State Supreme Court, the search
has sighted the unlawfulness of the search. Ultimately, it was upheld on the precedent "Wolf v Colorado(1949) had established that the states were not
required to abide by the exclusionary rule. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, and oral arguments were heard on March 29, 1961"(United States
Courts). This explains the issue at hand of how the Fourth Amendment was infringed upon, but also on how state courts compare to federal

Case Study On Mapp Vs Ohio
Jose Sanchez
CO3
Lt. Martinez
2/21/2017
Case title: Mapp v Ohio
Citation: 67 U.S. 635
Year decided: June 19, 1961
Mapp v. Ohio
Issue: Was the evidence discovered during the search and seizure conducted in violation of the fourth amendment of the constitution? Also can you
obtain items that are not to be seized for the search and seizure?
Rules: Officers entered the residence without consent of Miss Mapp. Police officers just broke the door and went in with a fake warrant. They violated
her 4th amendment, there shouldn't be an officer going into a house without consent or warrant. Which means officers cannot enter the house without
consent or a warrant.
Analysis: Cleveland police had gotten a tip from an anonymous person.

Mapp V. Ohio Court Case
Mapp V Ohio Court Case
Summary
The event took place in Cleveland, Ohio, when Dollree Mapp's house was entered by police officers, who weren't carrying any official search
warrants. The police believed she was sheltering a suspected bomber; no evidence or bodies were found, but police discovered a chest containing
explicit pictures stored within her basement – these pictures violated state law. With this discovery, thepolice arrested Mapp due to the vulgar images
they obtained. Once arrested, Dollree claimed that her fourth amendment of rights had been violated by the police, and ultimately brought her case to
the supreme court. The supreme court came to the decision that illegally seized evidence shall not be authorized for use in criminal prosecutions in
federal courts and later broadened this ruling to state courts.
Decision
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects citizens against unlawful searches and seizures – a warrant with reasonable justification to
lead a search is required, in this case protecting Mapp from further conviction (since the police entered without any search warrant). Her case, which
was brought to the US supreme court, ended 5/3 in her favour. The Court proclaimed that "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of
the Constitution is, by [the Fourth ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Ohio court case impacted the American population because it enforced the rule that police officers are not authorized to use illegally obtained evidence
(breaking the fourth amendment) in court, by applying the exclusionary rule. The fourth Amendment says that government authorities can't conduct
direct searches or seizures without warrants to support their search. Be that as it may, the amendment does not explain what happens in the event that
they may conduct an unlawful search. Mapps case caused the exclusionary rule to come about, which says that the proof found in such searches cannot
be used in evidence against a defendant in

Constitutional Policing Essay
Constitutional Policing
The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution states:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search 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 seized." The Fourth Amendment is clearly broken in the case of Weeks v. United States, it was a United States Supreme Court case in which
the Court unanimously held that the warrantless seizure of items from a private residence constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment. It also
prevented local officers from securing evidence by means ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This precedent later became known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine," and is an extension of the exclusionary rule. 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

Thank You For Meeting With Me This Past Week
Thank you for meeting with me this past week. In this letter, I will provide you with my legal opinion and analysis so you can make a qualified
decision regarding the charges you face. I will first restate the facts, as I know them, to confirm their accuracy. Next, I will provide you with an
explanation of the law as it applies in your case, and lastly, give you my opinion on whether conviction of methamphetamine during a search,
although the warrant was rescinded was brought against you. ALLEGED FACTS: On the night of September 1, 2015, you and your wife were
leaving a party at a friend's house. As you were driving home within a half mile of your residence, your car got a flat tire. You had to pull over and
get it fixed. During this time, a CHP officer had found you on the side of the road and pulled over to offer to help. The police officer came up to
the car and thought he had smelled alcohol. Once the information was obtained on you the CHP officer ran your plates and found to have a prior
arrest warrant for you. The officer had searched you at the scene of the incident. During which the police had found you to be in procession of a
bundle of methamphetamine. For this reason, it was stated to you that you would be arrested and taken into custody. APPLICABLE LAW In the State
of Ohio the court must have a valid search warrant to have searched your person. Although there was, a warrant issued for your arrest the judge
rescinded the warrant one week earlier. In

Search And Seizure Exceptions . There Are Several Exceptions
Search and seizure exceptions There are several exceptions to the principles of search and seizure. The plain view doctrine is an exception where
evidence that is visible during a police search, even without a warrant, may be seized. This may be used in situations where a crime is in progress
and an officer enters a residence. Any item within plain view that may be illegal will fall within this exception. It may also be used during a traffic
stop. However, this exception is allowable only for instances when an officer sees the evidence while also having a legal right to be in the viewing
area (Schmalleger, 2014, p. 133). Although, one important case from the Supreme Court, Harris v. United States (1968) involved an officer who... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This exception comes into play when an officer either conducts a search and/or seizes property based on the belief that it is within a lawful
situation. However, it may later be determined that the search warrant may be ruled as illegal. If the officer had perceived the search and seizure
was being conducted with "reasonable good faith," an exception can exist to the exclusionary rule (Schmalleger, 2014, p. 131). This was determined
in the case of United States v. Leon (1984) when the Supreme Court determined that the officer had performed due diligence in obtaining a warrant,
yet it later proved to be invalid due to lack of probable cause. Instead of applying the fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine, the court indicated the
officer acted in good faith and that an exception was to be enacted. Exclusionary rule cases The exclusionary rule, handed down by the Supreme Court
in 1914, is a "court–made constitutional requirement" regarding evidence obtained during search and seizure (Walker & Hemmens, 2010, p. 89).
Since it is not specified in the fourth amendment, the court used the exclusionary rule to allow or exclude evidence according to the rules covering
search and seizure. The case that initially brought forth the exclusionary rule was Weeks v. United States. In this case in 1914, police entered the house
of Fremont Weeks twice in the same day, once by using a key they found on the property and another time

Mapp V. Ohio And The Rest Of Us Too
Mapp v. Ohio and the Rest of Us Too
Eric Mendoza
Clovis Community College
Mapp v. Ohio and the Rest of Us Too
My research was conducted and compiled to present information on the Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio. The Mapp v. Ohio case was brought
before the Supreme court in the year 1961 and was and still is considered a landmark supreme court case in dealing with Civil Liberties and
criminal Procedure. The case itself deals with the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence in criminal proceedings, but I feel the case addressed a
more deeply rooted problem. A problem where american ideals of freedom and liberty are pitted against a changing social relationship with law
enforcement, which I will discuss ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The officers left Ms. Mapp's home leaving one officer behind and returned several hours later with several more officers and again requested entry
in to the home. The officers brandished a piece of paper, supposedly as a search warrant then proceeded to break in the door to the home. When the
officers entered the home Ms. Mapp asked to see the warrant and as it was displayed took it from the officers hands and placed in near her body and
or in her dress, the accounts differ here. One of the officers struggled with Mapp and eventually confiscated the paper from her. Subsequently Ms.
Mapp was handcuffed for being, according to the officers "belligerent".
The raid on Ms. Mapp's home ended with the discovery that there was no suspect hiding there and also the no illegal betting materials. The only
things that were found were some pornographic materials in the room of Ms. Mapp. Mapp was then arrested for the possession of pornographic
material, she was subsequently prosecuted, found guilty by the court and sentenced for the material. During the trial the prosectors nor any other party
were ever able to produce a search warrant. We later find out thepolice never obtained a search warrant and Ms. Mapp sought to overturn her
conviction because the evidence used in her case was obtained during an illegal search and seizure. At this time there was already established precedent
that illegally obtained evidence was

Case Analysis : Mapp V. Ohio
Purdy– Mapp v. Ohio On May 23, 1957, Dollree Mapp(1923–2014) took Ohio to court. Looking at this historical case in criminal procedure, in which
the United States Supreme Court decided that evidence collected in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches
and seizures, "cannot be used in state law criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well as in federal criminal law prosecutions in federal courts as
had formerly been the law (Mapp v. Ohio. 1960)". The Supreme Court completed this by use of selective incorporation as explained by the Court. The
Fourth Amendment was violated due to the absence of a search warrant. Mapps' right against " unreasonable search and seizure" was violated on a
Thursday,... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Alternatively, they focused on the Fourth Amendment which does not allow any "unreasonable search and seizures". Mapp 's lawyer also asked if
the material gathered were protected by the first amendment. The legal decision ruled that Ms. Mapp 's rights were in fact violated as a result of the
Cleveland Police Department 's failure to provide a warrant upon their entrance of her home. The due process is the government 's responsibility to
respect, support and maintain the rights of a person who lawfully lives in the United States. There was an argument if the photos found in the truck, in
the basement, should count as reasonable evidence or not. The fourth amendment requires that one has a warrant or is granted permission onto the
property before they can collect serviceable evidence to show in court. While there was no evidence of a warrant during the entrance of Ms. Mapp 's'
home, they are unable to use the depicted evidence found from her basement. On the other hand, people believe that the Court should have ruled in
favor for Ohio. Some believe that the evidence obtained should be allowed in court because the Fourth Amendment does not apply to a non–federal
case such as this one. The Supreme Court reached the conclusion, in this case, was that any evidence that is obtained illegally is not allowed to be
submitted in state courts. The exclusionary rule and the Fourth Amendment

Mapps V. Ohio Supreme Court Case Study
The Mapps v. Ohio Supreme Court case was issued to protect the American's right of the Fourth Amendment which protects us from unreasonable
searches and seizure. It all started on May 23. 1957 in Cleveland, Ohio. Three Cleveland police officers appeared at the appellant's residence
because they believed that a suspect that was wanted for questioning was believed to be hiding out at that particular residence. They believed the
suspect had a connection to the recent bombing that happened, also they believe that there was a large amount of paraphernalia hidden at the house.
Miss Delraee Mapp and her daughter lived on the second floor of the two story home. After the cops arrived at her house, they knocked down the door
and demanded entrance to her house. Miss Mapp then called her lawyer and would not let the cops in... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Miss Mapps did not get to the door quickly, and one of the other doors were forced opened. Therefore, the police officers let themselves in and
gained admittance. Meanwhile, Miss Mapp's lawyer had just arrived, but the officers did not let him see Miss Mapps nor enter the house. Miss
Mapps was halfway down the stairs when the officers broke down her door and were already in her hallway. That was when she demanded to see
the search warrant that she had asked for. She got a hold of the warrant and put it in her bosom. As a result the officer tried to get the paper back, and
ended up handcuffing her because she was supposedly being "belligerent". The officer was not so kind with her and twisted her arm and she yelled at
him telling him that he was hurting her. The police officer then took the handcuffed Miss Mapps upstairs where they searched her drawers, a close and
some suitcases. In turn they searched the whole entire house but they did not find the bombing suspect. However, they did say the found the obscene
materials in which she was being convicted

The Trial No Search Warrant
Facts of the Case:
Mapp was arrested for possessing obscene pictures, after police illegally obtained them. At the time Ohio had a statute that made the possession of
obscene literature criminal. At Mapp's trial no search warrant was admitted into evidence, however she was still convicted. The Court citing Wolf vs
Colorado found that evidence obtained from an unlawful search and seizure is admissible in criminal prosecution. On appeal, the Supreme Court of the
United States reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the Court. "unlawful searches and seizure" "right to privacy"
Issues:
Is evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment, prohibiting "unreasonable searches and seizures" admissible as evidence in criminal ... Show
However, the concurring opinion gave by Justice Hugo Black stated that the fourth amendment ban against unreasonable searches and seizures along
with the fifth amendment's ban against forced self–incrimination defends the exclusionary rule.
Another concurring opinion was made by Justice William Douglas believed that the officers had violated Mapp's "right to privacy".
Dissenting Opinion:
Justice Harlan, Justices Frankfurter and Whittaker dissented. Justice Harlan wrote the dissenting opinion. In his dissent, Justice Harlan argued that the
majority confronted the wrong issue in its decision. Because Mapp was convicted under an Ohio statute criminalizing the possession of obscene
material, Justice Harlan believed that the "new and pivotal issue" was whether this statute "is consistent with the rights of free thought and expression
assured against state action by the Fourteenth Amendment.(Mapp vs Ohio)" He concluded that the majority had ignored the principles of judicial
restraint and stare decisis, and had "'reached out'" to consider the exclusionary rule issue. According to Justice Harlan, this was a First Amendment case
and not an appropriate case for extending the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule to the states. He also concluded that it was wrong to impose the
exclusionary rule, designed for the federal criminal process, on the states which, in his view, bore quite

Mapp vs Ohio Essay
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... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In the basement they found a chest that contained an amount of pornography. The pornography was a few magazines, some photos, and artworks
which depicted nudity. This being illegal in the state of Ohio at the time, being lewd and lascivious material, Mapp was arrested and charged with
having obscene materials. In the first trial she was given, the prosecution did not provide the search warrant that was used. The prosecution also
failed to state why the warrant was not submitted, In fact the prosecution avoided the subject almost entirely. There was a reasonable belief that
there was never a search warrant made in the first place, However the courts convicted her guilty anyways, on the grounds that she had broken the
law whether the evidence was legally seized or illegally seized. The court also determined that the evidence had not been taken from the defendant's
person by use of brutal force against the defendant. They also stated that there was no law in the state of Ohio that prevented the use of illegally
seized evidence, which was also stated in wolf v Colorado, In which the court held that in a prosecution in a state for a state crime the fourteenth
amendment doesn't prevent the use of evidence obtained by an illegal search and seizure. She was then sentenced to a women's reformatory for a
year, where she began to make her appeal to the Supreme Court. The case was argued in front of the Supreme Court on March 29 1961. Miss Mapp's
attorney A.L.

The Legal Rule Of The Court Essay
Over the years, rules have been established by Supreme Court Cases in the interest of the defendants, for the protection of their Constitutional Rights
and to make sure they have received a fair trial. These rules are created on a case by case situation in which certain situations arise and problems
surface with the judicial system and the way that it is acting. One could not predict every problem that will arise in the court room, but all that can be
done is to address the situations as they come about.
According to the Merrian Webster dictionary, theexclusionary rule is a legal rule that bars unlawfully obtained evidence from being used in court
proceedings (Exclusionary Rule). It prohibits the prosecutor from using illegally obtained evidence against a defendant during a trial. The exclusionary
rule is a court–made rule. This means that it was created not in statutes passed by legislative bodies but rather by the U.S. Supreme Court.
At one time, in past history, the seizure of evidence by illegal means did not affect whether or not it could be used in court. In fact, just so long as it
was proven to be relevance and trust worthy, meeting certain evidentiary criteria for admissibility, any evidence, no matter how it was obtained, was
acceptable in the court room. The exclusionary rule has been in existence since the early 1900 (Lawbrain). Before the rule was fashioned, any
evidence was admissible in a criminal trial if the judge found the evidence to be relevant to the

Mapp V. Ohio Case Analysis
During the 1960s, numerous court cases were heard in the Supreme Court regarding individual liberties. The Mapp v. Ohio (1961) decision reflected
American history as the decision took place during the Warren Court revolution. The socially sympathetic Chief Justice Earl Warren played a
monumental role during the Civil Rights era. National sentiment towards the plights of African–Americans and individual rights dominated the
country. The Four Amendment of the U.S. 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..." (U.S. Constitution). In other words, the belongings of a person, house, papers,
+effects (possessions) are... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Cases such as Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), Miranda v. Arizona (1966) and Terry v. Ohio (1968) added to the accused party rights. It defined the
Warren Court administration era judgements. Similarly, the Miranda rights case changed the course of criminal procedures in the country. The
landmark Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona (1966), forced states to comply with their judgement to avoid violating a person's Fifth
Amendment right. As stated in the U.S. Constitution, a part of the amendment states, "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
against himself" (U.S. Constitution). The Supreme Court changed the conduct of police officers with a person held in custody (Long 149). Basically,
the protect individuals from incriminating against their selves. The Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) Supreme Court case allowed defendants to receive
lawyers to help them in serious cases (Johnson 148). Then, the Terry v. Ohio (1968) Supreme Court decision allowed police officers to conduct
reasonable sources without a warrant (Johnson 154). These cases represent a time in U.S. history where supports of individual rights would find
victory in the court. The exception of those would be the Terry case where the Justices would put a limit of the warrants controversy. With that being
said, future similar court cases limited the scope of the original decisions. Nevertheless, progress was made during

The Importance Of The Fourth Amendment To The Criminal...
There has always been the thought that the police can abuse their power, especially when it comes to collection of evidence that could incriminate
someone for something that was illegally obtained. The exclusionary rule was put in place to counteract evidence that may have been illegally obtained
to be inadmissible in a court of law with few exceptions to the rule. Under the Fourth Amendment, the police cannot just force their way into someone's
home without probable cause. Even with probable cause, the police need to have the consent of the owner or a warrant that says they can search the
premises, and that anything they find can be "used against you in a court of law" (Miller, 2016). The Fourth Amendment is one of the most important
amendments to the criminal justice system. The Fourth protects citizens from the police obtaining things that could lead citizens to be convicted for
something that they police did not have permission to obtain in the first place. The exclusionary rule was put in place by Mapp v. Ohio and Weeks v.
United States. In Weeks V. United States, Weeks was convicted of "transporting lottery tickets through the mail" when police illegally search his home
without a search warrant (oyez) The police went to his house where they search Weeks's room and "took possession of various papers and articles
found there, which were afterwards turned over to the United States marshal" (Weeks v. United States 232 U.S. 383, 1914). They then returned to
weeks home to

Earl Warren Served As Chief Justice
Earl Warren served as Chief Justice in the the Supreme Court replacing Fred M. Vinson as Chief Justice after his death in 1953. In the period from
1961 to 1969, Warren Court presided over the criminal justice system in the United States, using the 4th and 14th Amendment to extend constitutional
protections to all courts in every State. This is known as the "nationalization" of the Bill of Rights. In these years, cases pertaining to the right to legal
counsel, confessions, searches, and the treatment of juvenile criminals all happen during. The Warren Court 's modification in the criminal justice
system began with the case of Mapp v. Ohio, the first of several important cases in which it reassess the role of the 14th Amendment as it applied to
State judicial systems. Mapp v. Ohio (1961) was a case in criminal procedures where as the United States Supreme Court came to the conclusion that
the evidence confiscated in the case of Dollree Mapp was in violation of the Fourth Amendment; which protects her against unreasonable searches
and seizures in the state of Ohio. According to The Supreme Court case No. 367 U.S 643 (U.S 1961), Dollree Mapp resided in Cleveland, Ohio with
her small daughter. On May 23rd 1957, police received an anonymous tip by phone that a man accused of suspicious acts was hiding out in the home
of Mapp. The alleged man was wanted for questioning in connection with a recent bombing and that there was a large amount of paraphernalia being
hidden in the

Legal Evolution of the Exclusionary Rule Essay
The Constitution of the United States was designed to protect citizens' civil rights from infringement by the government and law enforcement agencies.
The Constitution guarantees that the civil liberties of the people of this country shall be respected and upheld. That fact is often considered to be
common knowledge and taken for granted by the vast majority of the population. However it was not always that way. American legislation is
constantly growing and developing. New rules and practices are being developed and established. The exclusionary rule is considered to be the most
vital to the protection of civil rights. The exclusionary rule is represented by the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution and it guarantees that illegally...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Despite the overwhelming significance of the rights protected and guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment, many questions and concerns existed
regarding police and court procedures and practices. The most important of those questions was whether or not illegally obtained evidence could be
used in courts. Before 1914, any evidence obtained by the police could be used in both Federal and State courts, regardless of any constitutional
violations that might have taken place during the search and seizure of that evidence. Such practice has spawned multiple occurrences of police
misconduct. Before that date, many police officers did not follow constitutional requirements. They could freely search individuals and households and
seize evidence without appropriate warrants. Needless to say, that such poor performance resulted in illegal arrests and unjust prosecutions of innocent
people. One of such cases had become a landmark and initiated the long process of reforms in regard to the Fourth Amendment and police conduct. The
Supreme Court articulation of the exclusionary rule has come in Weeks v. United States case in 1914. That case has changed the Fourth Amendment
and related laws forever. The defendant, Mr. Freemont Weeks was convicted based on the evidence illegally seized from him during the warrantless
search. The appeal was initiated by the defense attorney, thus bringing the case to the attention of the highest Court. The United

Exclusionary Rule: How, When, and Why Was it Established?...
The Fourth Amendment is the basis for several cherished rights in the United States, and the right to the freedom of unreasonable searches and seizures
is among them. Therefore, it would seem illegitimate– even anti–American for any law enforcement agent to search and seize evidence unlawfully or
for any court to charge the defendant with a guilty verdict established on illegally attained evidence. One can only imagine how many people would
have been sitting in our jails and prisons were it not for the introduction of the exclusionary rule. The Exclusionary Rule is a law passed by the United
States Supreme Court. It demands that "any evidence obtained by police using methods that violate a person's constitutional rights be excluded ... Show
The defendant, Fremont Weeks, was convicted of using the mail system to allocate chances in lottery [considered gambling in Missouri] which was
unlawful. The federal agents had searched the defendant's house and seized evidence more than once without consent or a warrant (Weeks v. United
States, 232 U.S. 383, 1914). Thirty–five years later after Weeks' case, the Supreme Court in Wolf v. Colorado (1949) held that the 4th Amendment
protection applies to searches by state officials and federal agents. However, the exclusionary rule generated in Weeks' case did not apply to the states.
The appellant, Julius A. Wolf, was convicted of treachery to commit abortions in Colorado and police officers had attained evidence used against him
without a warrant or consent. State judges were not required to disregard evidence obtained in desecration of the 4th Amendment in states' criminal
prosecutions. In this case, the Supreme Court applied the 4th Amendment to the states through the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause. Wolf's verdict
was upheld (Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 1949). The Supreme Court left the states to enforce the 4th Amendment protection. It resulted in the abused
power and the court had to intervene (Holten &Lamar, 1991). 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 Criminal Justice System
There has always been the thought that police can abuse their power especially when it comes to collection of evidence that could incriminate
someone for something that was illegally obtained. The exclusionary rule was put in place to counteract evidence that may have ben illegally obtained
to be inadmissible in a court of law with few exceptions to the rule.
Under the Fourth Amendment, the police cannot just force their way into someone's home without probable cause. Even with probable cause, the
police need to have the consent of the owner or a warrant that says they can search the premises, and that anything they find can be "used against you in
a court of law" (Miller, 2016). The Fourth Amendment is one of the most important amendments to the criminal justice system. The Fourth protects
citizens from the police obtaining things that could lead citizens to be convicted for something that the police did not have permission to obtain in the
first place. The exclusionary rule was put in place by Mapp v. Ohio and Weeks v. United States.
In Weeks V. United States, Weeks was convicted of transporting lottery tickets through the mail when police illegally search his home without a search
warrant. The police went to his house where they search Weeks's room and "took possession of various papers and articles found there, which were
afterwards turned over to the United States marshal" They then returned to weeks home to search for more stuff that could be used against Weeks. The

Mapp Vs. Ohio Case Study
Previously, in a 1949 decision (Wolf v. Colorado), the Supreme Court expanded some of the protections of the Fourth Amendment, however, it did not
go so far as to apply those protections to the states. Specifically, the exclusionary rule (the rule that states that illegally obtained evidence may not be
used against a defendant) was not applied to the states. Mapp v. Ohio was an opportunity to do just that. The Mapp v. Ohio case originated in Cleveland
and concerned a situation in which police officers broke into the home of Dollree Mapp, claiming they had a search warrant. They told Ms. Mapp that
an informant had told them that a suspect wanted in a bombing was hiding in her home and that they had a tip that gambling paraphernalia was hidden

Exclusionary Rule : The Rule
Exclusionary Rule The U.S Supreme Court adopted the exclusionary rule to prevent the use of inappropriate behavior and violations of an
individual's rights by government officials through the use of the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule protects the rights of the people under
the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, and requires evidence obtained directly or indirectly as a result of government violations cannot be
used as proof of guilt in a court of law [1] The U. S. Const. amend. IV, states that the rights of the people are to be secure in their homes and person,
papers and effects, shall not be violated by unreasonable search and seizure, and no warrants shall be issued unless it is supported by probable cause.
[2] Probable cause clearly states that a person, items, and places to be searched must be approved by a judge or magistrate to give officers the legal
right to move forward. The U. S. Const. amend. V provides as a safe guard to prevent officials from illegally gathering self–incriminatory statements;
therefore, the Miranda warning is issued to provide individuals the right to waive or invoke their constitutional rights to remain silent. [3] Of course,
the U. S. Const. amend. VI, provides an individual the right to counsel. [4] As a consequence, illegally seized evidence cannot be used against the
suspect, and the suspect can be released, and evidence dismissed even if the officer knows the suspect is guilty of the crime. Nevertheless, under certain

History Of The Exclusionary Rule
More than a century since the Fourth Amendment, its value was hardly recognizable by the criminal defendants since evidences seized by law
enforcement in violation of warrant and probable cause requirements was justifiable during the defendant prosecution. The penalty for improperly
search and seizure that the evidence is obtain will be excluded from the court case, better known as the exclusionary rule. Between the dawn and the
intermediate of the 20th century, the exclusionary rule obstruct illegal seized evidence from the federal courts, all of sudden, in 1961 the well–known
case that revolves around the exclusionary rule, Mapp v. Ohio, was applied to state courts and as a result, federal supervision under states' search and
seizure guideline

Dollree Mapp's Execlusionary Rule
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.... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Mapp complained that her Fourth Amendment rights were being violated because she was convicted based on evidence procured from an illegal
warrantless search of her home. When the Ohio Supreme Court rejected her case, she brought it forth to the United States' Supreme Court. In 1961, the
U.S. Supreme Court rescinded Dollree Mapp's conviction and extended the exclusionary rule to all state criminal prosecutions. "The exclusionary rule
dictates that any evidence obtained by police or other government agents through an illegal search in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the
Constitution is inadmissible in court during a criminal trial" (5). Before Mapp v. Ohio, the exclusionary rule was created due to Weeks v. United States,
another Supreme Court case in 1914, when it was only obligatory for the federal courts to implement this rule; the state courts were not mandated to
obey the exclusionary

The Mapp Vs. Ohio Court Case
The Mapp vs. Ohio court case took place in Cleveland Ohio when Dollree Mapp was unlawfully convicted of a felony. On May 23, 1957 at 1:00
P.M., Police appeared at the door of Dollree, who was currently living with her daughter from a previous marriage, and demanded entrance. They
believed that she was housing a bombing suspect within her home and that she was part of a gambling crew. Due to the 4th amendment "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" (US Const. amend. IV), she demanded to see the warrant and until then they were not allowed entrance. The fourth
amendment requires for a search to occur or seizing of possessions, they only can do that to certain aspect is what the warrant initial was for. For the
next two and a half hours, the police laid siege to the house. Her lawyer appeared on the scene, and one of the policemen told him that they now had
obtained a warrant to search the house, but refused to show it ("Exclusionary Rule"). The officers then forced their way into the house by knocking
their doors down and she demanded to see the warrant. Flashing a piece of paper in the air, she snatched it from the police officer and and shoved it
down her blouse in a defiant manner.

Mapp V. Ohio Case Study
Mapp V. Ohio (1961)In May of 1957, in a Cleveland, Ohio suburb, a woman named Dollree Mapp found herself at the center of an unprecedented
legal battle over civil liberties. Mapp, who was no stranger to the Cleveland Police Department, ran a boarding house and was involved with illegal
gambling. Working off an anonyms tip, the Cleveland police showed up at Mapp's house to look for a suspect in a local bombing case. They
believed, along with the suspect, they would find illegal gambling equipment. Upon their arrival, Mapp refused to let the officers into her home
because they did not possess a search warrant. However, after several hours, the officers returned and forcibly entered Mapp's house after wielding a
piece of paper that they claimed... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
At the urging of her attorney, Mapp appealed her conviction on the grounds that her First Amendment right had been violated. Her argument was that
she was well within her rights to have been in the possession of the explicit material found during the search of her home. Interestingly enough, when
her case went before the Supreme Court it was not the First Amendment that was addressed, but the Fourth Amendment. The argument supporting
Mapp highlighted the fact that a search warrant was never produced at her original trial, so evidence against her should not have been used. Due to the
fact that the evidence was seized illegally by the police without a warrant, the police violated her Fourth Amendment right. The Constitutional issue
surrounding the case of Mapp v. Ohio involves the Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) Search and Seizure. Amendment IV was passed by Congress
on September 25, 1789 and ratified on December 15, 1791. According to the National Constitution Center, "Amendment IV people have the right 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."
(Amendment IV Search and

The Fourth Amendment: The Mapp Case
The Fourth Amendment
One of the most famous cases brought to the Warren Court was in 1961. This case was a turning point for the recognition of the Fourth Amendment
and an individual's right to privacy. This case came to the court after police officers forced their way into the home of Ms. Dollree Mapp's house after
receiving information that a person who was wanted for questioning in connection to a recent bombing was hiding in her home. The officers did not
find the suspect, but instead found a trunk that carried obscene material in the basement. Ms. Mapp was then arrested for the possession of the pictures
and disorderly behavior towards the arresting officers. At her trail Ms. Mapp argued that the search conducted at her home violated ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
He tried to reevaluate the exclusionary rule applying to the states in Mapp v. Ohio and argued that the evidence obtained could be admissible due to an
act of "good faith" error in judgment. Although, the ruling in the Mapp case stands, the Rehnquist Court created a new exception to the exclusionary
rule specifically under the good faith exception in the case of Illinois v. Krull. In 1981 the state of Illinois required licensed motor vehicle and
vehicular parts sellers to permit state officials to inspect certain required records. During a routine inspection at a wrecking shop police found that Krull
had three stolen vehicles and found one vehicle with the identification number removed. The state court and the federal court both agreed that the
statue violated an individual's Fourth Amendments rights. However, One March 9, 1987 the Rehnquist Court decided that per the case of Illinois v.
Krull evidence may be admissible if an officer relied on a statute that is later found invalidated making the exclusionary rule irrelevant to officers in
these

Argumentative Essay On Dollree Mapp
Most people probably recognize this as the
Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. However, what most people may not know is that this profound law, this remarkable liberty, this
law that most do not even think about because the alternative would seem absurd, this impressive and vital law to our democracy that keeps the police
from just barging into our homes whenever they feel like it, was once not granted as a definite liberty by the states. But one woman, whether she meant
to or not, changed that. Her name was Dollree Mapp, and it was her visit to the United States Supreme Court that changed everything. The background,
ruling, and significance of this case is continually vital to our society, and without it, our country would ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Mapp was acquitted of the gambling charges, which were a misdemeanor. At first, Mapp pled guilty to the obscene materials charge but later
withdrew her guilty plea and pled not guilty. Her trial started on September 3, 1958 (Persico 14). There were two witnesses for the prosecution at
the trial: Sergeant Delau and Officer Haney. There were three witnesses for the defense: Walter Greene, Dolores Clark, and Dolly Mapp (Persico
49). The police testified that the obscene materials were in Mapp's bedroom. However, Mapp testified that the police moved the materials from the
basement to her bedroom, and that they belonged to Morris Jones, a former occupant of her home (Persico 51). The alleged warrant was never
brought forth by the prosecutor or the officers during the trial (Persico 54; 55). Nevertheless, Mapp was found guilty and sentenced to no less than one
but no more than seven years (Persico 55). This led to the issue before the Supreme Court. Should evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth
Amendment be admissible in state criminal proceedings ("Mapp v. Ohio"– Oyez par. 5)? At the time, unlawfully seized evidence was not allowed in
federal courts but was allowed in state courts ("Mapp v. Ohio Podcast" par. 1). This was a result of Wolf v. Colorado, in which the Supreme Court
ruled that the exclusionary rule, the law that makes illegally seized evidence

Exclusionary Rule: The Case Of Mapp V. Ohio
In 1961 exclusionary rule was used by the Supreme Court against the states in the case of Mapp v. Ohio. Exclusionary rule is that any evidence that
is illegally seized by the police will be inadmissible in a criminal trial. At the trial the police were unable to provide their search warrant and the court
ruled that exclusionary rule would now apply to all police officers throughout the country.
The case of Mapp v. Ohio happened in Cleveland, Ohio when police offiers received a tip that a person that was wanted for questioning in a
bombing a few days earlier was hiding out at Mapp's house, as well as some illegal betting slips and other incriminating equipment. Three police
officers went to the home and asked permission to enter. Mrs. Mapp called

The Constitution : The Exclusionary Rule
Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution: The Exclusionary Rule
Austin Cole Renslow Mountain View High School
Abstract
The exclusionary rule protects evidence that was found through unconstitutional methods from being used. The Fourth Amendment is a part of the Bill
of Rights and it was a focal point to protect their citizens due to the British abusing their powers and trespassing during the 1700s. It is currently a
heated topic of discussion in society due to the San Bernardino shooting. The exclusionary rule is involved in that shooting because the FBI is
requesting access to iPhones to prevent further shootings however, some argue that the FBI would not be able to use the evidence due to the fact that
they would be violating our Fourth Amendment. This scenario ties into the different viewpoints of the controversial topics. Constitutionalist, Tim
Lynch, believes strongly in the exclusionary rule and its purpose of deterring officers from breaking the Fourth Amendment while plenty of officers
firmly believe that it should be abolished since it has led to guilty criminals that have incriminating evidence walk free based off of how the evidence
was acquired. I personally believe that the exclusionary rule is an important part of the judicial system and is a good well–written rule that protects our
freedoms from being violated by law enforcement. Policy Identification
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the citizens from unreasonable

Analysis of Mapp v. Ohio
To the everyday US citizen the United States Supreme Court is a nonexistent entity that is not often heard from or seen unless it reaches a
decision on a controversial case. Mapp v. Ohio was one of the controversial cases that the Supreme Court made a decision on in 1961. What were
the facts of the case? What constitutional issues are in question? What did the court decide, and what were there reasoning of the justices? What is
the significance of the case? 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.

Mapp V. Ohio Case
The Mapp v Ohio case originated in Ohio when police forced their way into Dollree Mapp's house without a search warrant. The police went into the
house because Dollree was suspected to be harboring a bomber. The police did not find the suspect but found in the basement pictures that were
obscene. She was convicted in an Ohio court. She argued her 4th amendment rights were violated during the search by the police. Mapp eventually took
her appeal to United States supreme court. The evidence obtained at Mapps house was illegal evidence and was arrested for it.
The problem with this case is Dollree's 4th amendment was violated by the police. The police came earlier to the house and asked to search the house
for a suspected bomber when they failed

Case Of Mapp V Ohio Controversy Of The Fourth Amendment
Mapp v. Ohio: Controversy of the Fourth Amendment
Ms. Dollree Mapp and her daughter lived in Cleveland, Ohio. After receiving information that an individual wanted in connection with a recent
bombing was hiding in Mapp's house, the Cleveland police knocked on her door and demanded entrance. Mapp called her attorney and subsequently
refused to let the police in when they failed to produce a search warrant. After several hours of surveillance and the arrival of more officers, the police
again sought entrance to the house. Although Mapp did not allow them to enter, they gained access by forcibly opening at least one door. Once the
police were inside the house, Mapp confronted them and demanded to see their warrant. One of the officers held ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
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.
Mapp appealed again to the Supreme Court of the United States in 1961. The case basically came down to this fundamental question: may evidence
obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admissible in state criminal proceedings? The Fourth Amendment 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?and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.? The Fourth
Amendment, however, does not define when a search or seizure is

The Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment was added on December 15, 1791, and ensured that it would protect citizens from arbitrary invasions, unlawful
detainments, and a citizen's right to privacy in the United States. Throughout modern America, the Fourth would should up in various landmark
court cases around the country and establish itself as one of the most fundamental rights a person can possess. Citizens have the right to feel safe
in their homes, as well as being safe around their own town, but what would happen if you were not at your residence and police wanted to search
your home? This can be seen in the court case Weeks v. United States. In 1911, Freemont Weeks was arrested in Missouri on the grounds of using
the express system to transport lottery tickets, which was in violation of the Criminal Code. While Weeks remained in custody, police officers went
to his home to search it and with no way to get in, a neighbor told them where to they could find a key. The officers entered the house of the Weeks
without a proper search warrant and took possession of his papers and articles. The officers then returned later on the same day with the marshal, still
without a warrant, and seized letters and envelopes that they found in his drawers. The letters the officers discovered were then used in court to find
Mr. Weeks guilty of sending lottery tickets through the U.S. mail, ultimately leading to his conviction. Weeks petitioned his arrest and demanded that
he receive his possessions back. As

Mapp V. Ohio ( 1961 )
Mapp v. Ohio (1961), was a milestone 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," which cannot be used in the law on the state level or in
criminal prosecutions in state courts, and in addition, federal criminal law prosecutions in federal courts (MAPP v. OHIO. They Oyez Project at IIT
Chicago–Kent College of Law.) The Supreme Court successfully completed this by use of selective incorporation. In Mapp the association was within
the incorporation of the provisions, of the Fourth Amendment which are appropriate only to actions of the federal government into the Fourteenth
Amendment due process clause which is relevant to actions of the states. (Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643 (1961))
The paper will follow with the facts prior to the issue which led to the arrest of Dollree Mapp, Next it will then go forth with the facts presenting the
issue for the case and the courts majority opinion, along with dissenting opinions. Then we look at the political and philosophical context of the case
which deal with the individuals rights. Then lastly I will give my own personal commentary, and present the conclusions for the class.
Ms. Dollree Mapp was living in Cuyahoga county Ohio, in a residential neighborhood who owned her own home, and lived in a two family house on
the second floor with her eleven year old daughter. The Police officers in

Mapp Vs. Ohio State
Mapp vs. Ohio State(1961) Background: In the Mapp vs Ohio state court case, the issue disputed was when the appellant Dollree Mapp was
convicted of possessing "obscene" materials after an illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. During the year of 1961, Ohio police were
looking for a criminal accused of a bombing and had been told that he was hiding in Dollree Mapp 's house. Police acted quickly and came to her
house but when she didn 't answer the door, police officers forced themselves inside. Dollree demanded to see the police 's search warrant once
having spoken to her attorney but police didn't have one so they held a piece of paper to disguise that it was a warrant when it really wasn't.
Dollree grabbed the paper and when trying to read it, she was then handcuffed on the ground and police continued to search her house (Landmark
cases). During the search, officers found pornography and other materials that were against Ohio State law in her basement. As a result, Dollree was
arrested, found guilty, and sentenced to 1 to 7 years in the Ohio Women 's Reformatory. Dollree felt that justice was unfair so she consulted with her
attorney. "She appealed her conviction on the basis of freedom of expression" (Oyez). Dollree's lawyers argued to the Supreme Court of Ohio that she
should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal (warrantless) search and how it was illegally obtained.
"In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio

Exclusionary Rule : Criminal Law
Exclusionary Rule
Criminal Law
Kenneth Shelton
3/20/2016
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America." – Schoolhouse Rock (Preamble). Many people have heard this song and know it by heart from watching Schoolhouse Rock
on Saturday mornings while watching cartoons. While it is not just a song, it is the Preamble to our Constitution outlining what goals our Founding
Fathers where looking to achieve in our new country. This Constitution set forth provisions and expectations providing Americans their freedom while
laying ground rules for government limitations. There are many rules and adaptations that have evolved in the Constitution over time. Interpretation of
our constitutional rights have changed with the changing of Supreme Court Justices. Usually our rights are clearly explained. In some instances
though, it is not clearly explained what happens when these rights are violated. Just like the song above, many people also remember what they see in
television shows and accept them as truth. Stories like, how the police abuse their power by making unlawful arrest or how criminals tend to get
released due to technicalities. While these situations do happen, they are not as common

Brown V Board Of Education
Landmark Supreme Court Cases пЃ¬Brown v Board of Education (1954) пѓ The Background: In the 1950's, schools were separated by race. Linda
Brown and her sister had to walk down a dangerous railroad switchyard to get to the bus stop to their all–black elementary school. There was an
all–white school closer to the Brown's house, and the Brown family believed that segregated schools violated the Constitution. пѓ The Constitutional
Issue: This issue violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth amendment because segregated schools for people of race are unconstitutional
and unequal. пѓ The Outcome: The Supreme Court states that segregated schools could never be equal to each other. The Court decided that laws
requiring separate schools violated the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision supports that all people are equal. As a student, I am affected because
people of different race are welcome to go to school where I go to school. пЃ¬Mapp v Ohio (1961) пѓ The Background: The police were suspicious
of Dollree Mapp hiding a person suspected in a bombing. They went to her house and demanded entrance, but Mapp would not let them in because
they did not have a warrant. The police broke into her house and found evidence of crime. At the trial, the police could not show their warrant at the
U.S. Supreme Court. пѓ The Constitutional Issue: This violated the Fourth Amendment, because the Fourth Amendment protects the people from
unreasonable search and seizure by the government. пѓ The

The Role Of Homeland Security In The United States
In colonial times, the thought of personal privacy was a driving force in bringing people to the New World. Living under oppressive monarchs, the
promise of a self–governing new land was attractive to many early colonists. This new self–governing land quickly needed an authoritative police force
to prevent crime and punish criminals. As time and technology progressed however, the laws remained the same. Eventually, the laws were modernized.
"Mapp v. Ohio states evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is excluded from evidence in criminal trials. Katz v. the US What a
person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to
preserve as private, ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In fact most of their time is spent on monitoring and preventing real world attacks. Currently however, too many restrictions are put on intelligence
agencies. On April 15, 2016, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev planted two bombs near the finish line at the popular Boston Marathon, killing three
people and injuring more than two dozen. The local government was aware of the Tamerlan brothers and fearful of them. After further assessing the
situation the government came to the realization that had they have had more intelligence on the brothers the attacks could have been

Mapp V. Ohio
Landmark cases are brought to the attention of the Supreme Court due to their historical and legal significance. Generally these types of cases question
the application or interpretation of a certain law and usually concern an individual's rights and liberties. The three most common amendments
challenged include; the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendments. In the case Mapp v. Ohio, Dollree Mapp claims
that the decision made in lower court violated her fourth amendment rights.
On May 23, 1957, police officers received word that Dollree Mapp, a resident of Cleveland, Ohio was said to be quartering a suspected bomber.
Three police officers later arrived at her house and asked to enter which she refused. While one of them stayed, the two others left and soon came
back with other officers. They returned with a piece of paper in hand; however, Mapp took it from them and shoved it in... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
On the other hand, the State of Ohio argued, "the Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable
search and seizure in state courts." The state also brought up the point that the Tenth Amendment gives states the right to operate a separate court
system. In response to this, Mapp argued, the exclusionary rule applied in the federal courts should be taken into consideration in state courts.
Elkins v. United States acted as a precedent for the case and dealt with the exclusionary rule. In this case the Court ensured that no one should be
convicted due to unlawful evidence at either the State or federal level. In the perspective of the State of Ohio, they said that due to the Tenth
Amendment the states operate on a different level. However, the Tenth Amendment does state that powers not listed in the Constitution are reserved to
the states or people, it does not give the state court the power to conduct illegal searches and

Ohio V. United States In Violations From The Constitution

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Ohio V. United States In Violations From The Constitution

Similar to Ohio V. United States In Violations From The Constitution (6)

More from Angela Washington

More from Angela Washington (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Ohio V. United States In Violations From The Constitution