Analysis of Mapp v. Ohio

The right to a speedy trial is considered an essential part of the due process applicable against the states because of the decision in the case of Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967) and ultimately the inclusion of it within the fourteenth amendment, that was granted by the doctrine of selective incorporation. In this particular case, the defendant Klopfer appealed to the supreme court because his trial had been postponed to be brought up again in the future when desired. Klopfer claimed that the right to a speedy trial, granted by the Sixth Amendment, should be pertinent to a state’s criminal prosecution due to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Ingram, 2009). The case was examined by the supreme court who ruled that the right to a speedy trial is a crucial basic right, just as the other rights guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, that has been around for a very long time (Steinberg, 1975).

The case was argued in front of the Supreme Court on March 29 1961. Miss Mapp’s attorney A.L.

Terry v. Ohio is an important case in law enforcement. What did the Court say in this case, and why is it important?

Common Wealth of Pennsylvania v. Taylor Edsel is a controversial case involving arson. Taylor Edsel is being accused of intentionally setting fire to Nash Flash Electromotive due to her suspicious presence in the scene, her relation with the company, and her prominent record as an arsonist. The burning of the facility caused a commotion because the head of the company was a successful story of redemption, and a man a few steps away from revolutionizing the car industry with the Nash Flash, an electric car. Salve DeSoto is an engineer that interacted with Taylor Edsel in the workplace, thus, based on the outcomes of their interaction decided to testify against her. DeSoto is an electrical engineer who graduated from the University of Stanford

Illinois. This case involved a young man, James, being arrested for the murder of another adult. During his trial a witness on his behalf described james appearance on the night of the crime (“James v. Illinois”). However, the statements made contradicted James’s story he had told the police the day after the crime. Prosecutors ended up using James’s statements in the trial even though they were obtained illegally. Many people believed that the statements made by James were not under fair use because they were obtained illegally. Many cases dealing search and seizure end up favoring the state; however, James v. Illinois ended up favoring the the citizen charged in the case. The majority decision was 5-3 in James’s favor (“James v. Illinois). The US Supreme Court's policy on fair use of evidence has changed over time due to the extraneous number of court cases dealing with search and seizure. The Supreme Court originally favored the state when it came to search and seizure cases, but due to the pressure of society, the views shifted towards favoring the

the charge, and went to trial. During her trial, no search warrant was ever produced. The judge stated that there was considerable doubt as to whether there ever

The case of Terry v. Ohio took place in 1968. This case involved a Detective who had witnessed three suspicious males patrol a street and stare into a specific window multiple times. With reasonable suspicion and probable cause, Detective McFadden assumed one of them could be armed. He then took one of the males and patted him down to find that he had a pistol on him. He patted the victim down for reasons of protecting himself and others in the community. The Fourth Amendment does include, “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” (Israel, LaFave). The people who are being frisked are for reasons that the officer wants to protect himself and others, not just for no reason. People do have a right to their personal, private property and the stop and frisk, or sometimes know as a terry stop, is approved if the officer has reasons to believe the person could be carrying a weapon or a threat to society. The officer had reasonable suspicion and probable cause to search the male and was able to legally with the Fourth Amendment. The stop and frisk action has been around for almost 50 years. Is it time to put a stop to it because people think it is unconstitutional, or to change the way we view

Introduction Of Case: New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) is a court case heard and ruled on by the Supreme Court of the United States. The case dealt with the constitutionality of the search of a public school student after she had gotten caught smoking in a public school bathroom. The search provided evidence of drug paraphernalia, marijuana, and the intent of sale of drugs. The student fought the charges, stating that the search violated her Fourth Amendment rights. The United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3, that the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

III. Statement of Facts: Two Philadelphia officers observed Harry Mimms driving a car with an expired plate. They stopped the vehicle to issue a traffic ticket. One of the officers approached Mimms and asked him to step out of the car and produce his license and registration. Mimms alighted, whereupon the officer noticed a bulge under his jacket. Thinking the bulge might be a weapon, the officer frisked Mimms and discovered a loaded .38-caliber revolver. The other occupant was also carrying a gun. Mimms was indicted for carrying a concealed weapon and for unlawfully carrying a firearm without a license and convicted. Following a denial of a motion to suppress in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, Mimms was convicted. The conviction was affirmed by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania but the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed.

This assignment is meant to explore the landmark Supreme Court decision Mapp v. Ohio. It is the purpose of the essay to examine the facts of the controversy, the arguments offered by the petitioner, and discuss as well the Supreme Court's ruling and its possible impact on precedent. The analysis will conclude with my commentary and opinion in regard to the Mapp decision.

In the case Terry v. Ohio, the defendant John Terry argued that his Fourth Amendment right was violated when a police officer conducted a search on him, and found a concealed weapon. According to the officer, he had been monitoring Terry’s actions prior to the stop in fear of his safety, thus, had enough reasonable suspicion to stop and search the defendant. The Supreme Court decided to rule in favor of the state determining that the officer may stop and frisk any suspicious person when he feels that his safety or those of others are in danger. A Terry Stop is when the police are allowed to stop, question and frisk someone they believe is behaving suspiciously (Larson, 2000). I am going to argue how police officers benefit from the Terry Stops even though on many occasions they take advantage of their power and act unethical. Essentially, it is acceptable for police officers to stop and frisk any suspicious person because it enhances the community. Furthermore, from the law enforcement perspective, any officer of the law should have a mandatory right to stop and search for weapons in order to protect themselves at all times. It is obvious that society feels that they cannot trust law enforcement because minorities are more likely to be stopped and frisk. Needless to say, it can be argued that we are one step closer to chaos. I would consider that the Supreme Court clarify and specify a little more on the stop and frisk law because ambiguity. In my opinion, anytime an

There are many Supreme Court cases in which the court case decision affected society and the accused. Also, many debates about how it affected society and the accused are up in the air. People will either look at it as positive or negative, depending on the person. In some cases, many of the accused actually did something wrong, but yet still got away with the crime. It just goes to show there is a flaw in the court system, but again, a different subject.

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.

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

May 1957, three Cleveland police officers went to Dolree Mapp’s house as a follow up an informant’s tip that a suspect in a recent bombing was hiding there. They also had information that a large amount of materials for operating a numbers game would be found. Upon arrival at the house, officers knocked on the door and demanded entrance, but Mapp, after telephoning her lawyer, refused them entry without a search warrant. The officers struggled with Mapp to retrieve the piece of paper, at which time Mapp’s attorney arrived at the scene. The attorney was not allowed to enter the house or to see his client. Mapp was forcibly taken upstairs to her bedroom, where her belongings were searched. One officer found a brown paper bag containing books