Police officers suspected Ms. Mapp had a bomb and searched her home without a warrant, finding child pornography. She argued the evidence was inadmissible since the search violated the 4th Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled evidence from unlawful searches cannot be used in state courts.

1. By Alexa Sheridan

2.  Summary
 Police officers suspected that Ms. Mapp had a
bomb in her house, so they attempted to
search her house without a warrant. Instead
of a bomb, they found child pornography and
attempted to press charges in court against
Mapp.

3. Opinion of Plaintiff
 Mapp brought her case to the supreme court,
suggesting that the police officers had no
right to search her entire house and claimed
their warrant was not valid. She claimed the
evidence obtained by the police was not able
to be used in court because the police did not
have authorization with a warrant to search
her house.

4.  Opinion of Defendant
 The police claimed they had the right to
search to entire house to ensure the safety of
the citizens.This is because they believed
there was a bomb in her house.They believe
they had every right to search the house but
still refused to show the “warrant” they
showed Mapp in court.

5.  US Supreme Court Decision
 The Court determined that evidence obtained
through a search that violates the Fourth
Amendment is inadmissible in state courts.
 Amendments used by all parties
 4th and 14th

6.  Summary
 Ernesto Miranda was arrested and was not
read nor was he aware of his rights given to
him by the US constitution.

7.  Opinion of Plaintiff
 Ernesto Miranda claimed that his rights were
not read to him by the police officers that
arrested him at the time of the crime. He was
not informed of the 5th or 6th amendment.

8.  Opinion of Defendant
 The defendants claimed that Miranda
admitted to the crime so he was guilty.

9.  US Supreme Court Decision
 The Court decided that because Miranda was
not read his rights after the crime, his
confession could not be used in court.
 Amendments used by all parties
 5th and 6th

10.  Summary
 A teacher in New Jersey, foundT.L.O. and another girl
smoking in a restroom—a place that was by school
rule a nonsmoking area.The two girls were taken to
the principal's office whereT.L.O.'s friend admitted
that she had been smoking in the restroom.T.L.O.
denied smoking there. An assistant vice-principal
demanded to seeT.L.O.'s purse. Searching through it
he found a pack of cigarettes. He also found rolling
papers, a pipe, marijuana, a large wad of dollar bills,
and two letters that indicated thatT.L.O. was
involved in marijuana dealing at the high school.

11.  Opinion of the Plaintiff
 TLO claimed that a search of her for
cigarettes and marijuana was unlawful
because it violated her rights guaranteed by
the fourth amendment.

12.  Opinion of the Defendant
 They claimed that no probable cause is
needed in a school to ensure the safety of all
students.

13.  US Supreme Court Decision
 Set the precedent that school officials do not
have to abide by normal search and seizure
regulations.
 Amendments used by all parties
 4th