US Case Law Project

1. U.S. Case Law Project
by Kevin Falk
Period 6
College Business Law
Mr.Como

2. Map v. Ohio
“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 allow them to
enter without a search warrant. Three hours later, the two returned with several
other officers. They than broke in the door. Mapp asked to see the warrant and
took it from an officer, putting it in her dress. Mapp did not cooperate so they
handcuffed her for being aggressive. She was arrested, prosecuted, found
guilty and sentenced for possession of pornographic material. There was no
evidence of a search warrant“

3. Defendant
The police, who possessed no warrant to search Mapp’s property, had acted
improperly by doing so. Any evidence found during the search should be
thrown out of court and her conviction overturned. If the 4th Amendment did not
limit the priority of police on the local and State level, local law enforcement
would have a mandate to search wherever, whenever, and whomever they
pleased.

4. Plaintiff
Even if the search was made without proper authority, the State was not
prevented from using the evidence seized because “the Fourteenth
Amendment does not forbid the admission of evidence obtained by an
unreasonable search and seizure.” Ohio argued, the 14th Amendment does not
guarantee 4th Amendment protections in the State courts. Furthermore, under
the 10th Amendment, the States retain their right to operate a separate court
system. “

5. Court Decision
The court ruled in the Plaintiff’s favor. The
court claimed the fourteenth amendment did
not prevent the admission of evidence by an
illegal search and seizure.

6. Miranda v. Arizona
Ernesto Miranda was arrested and convicted of
kidnapping and rape charges. He was
identified in a police lineup and he confessed
and signed a written statement without being
told he had the right to an attorney. The
confession was used in court to convict
Miranda.

7. Defense’s Argument
The defense argued that Miranda has not been
read his rights and, therefore, did not know he
could have an attorney present. They wanted
the confession thrown out because it was
illegally obtained.

8. Plaintiff’s Argument
The Plaintiff argued that Miranda had been to
jail before so he had known his rights. He
signed the confession willingly. He was given a
fair trial based on Arizona law.

9. Court Decision
By a 5-4 margin, the Court voted to overturn Miranda's conviction. Writing for
the majority, Chief Justice Warren declared that the burden is upon the State to
demonstrate that “procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege
against self-incrimination” are followed.“The current practice of
'incommunicado' [unable to communicate with the world] interrogation is at
odds with one of our Nation's most cherished principles—that the individual
may not be compelled to incriminate himself.”

10. Marbury v. Madison
John Adams lost to Thomas Jefferson in the presidential election. During the
months he still had control, he appointed 39 new judges to hold some power
in the federalist branch. When Jefferson became president, he told his
Secretary of State, James Madison, to not deliver the commissions. One of
the people who were supposed to receive the commission was Marbury who
sued Madison to give it to him.

11. Defendant’s Argument
Madison was ordered by Jefferson to not
deliver the commissions. He also did not have
to deliver them because the Secretary of State
before him failed to deliver the commissions.

12. Plaintiff’s Argument
Marbury argued that he was entitled to the
position and the Supreme Court had the power
to appoint him to that position.

13. Court Decision
In a unanimous decision, written by Justice Marshall, the
Court stated that Marbury, indeed, had a right to his
commission. But, more importantly, the Judiciary Act of
1789 was unconstitutional. Marshal interpreted the
Constitution to mean the Supreme Court the power of
Judicial Review. That means the Supreme Court could
declare an action of the president or a law constitutional.