Mapps V. Ohio Supreme Court Case Study

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
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

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 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 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

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, the exclusionary 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

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

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

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 the police 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

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

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 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

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

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

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  Brown v Board of Education (1954)  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.  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.  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.  Mapp
v Ohio (1961)  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.  The
Constitutional Issue: This violated the Fourth Amendment, because the Fourth Amendment protects
the people from unreasonable search and seizure by the government.  The

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

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

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

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,
the police 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

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

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

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

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

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

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 more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
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 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

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

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

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

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 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

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 more content on Helpwriting.net ...
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

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

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.

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

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

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

Mapps V. Ohio Supreme Court Case Study

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Maritza Tyson

More from Maritza Tyson (14)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Mapps V. Ohio Supreme Court Case Study