Case Analysis : Mapp V. Ohio

Throughout the past centuries, the United States has encountered many court cases dealing with illegally searching citizens homes and using the evidence found against them. Cases dealing with Search and Seizure have dated back to Mapp v. Ohio, in which Dollree Mapp’s apartment was illegally searched and child pornography was found. This case raised the question, may evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding? This issue is a major problem because it could lead to many citizens rioting and even more cases dealing with this controversial topic. In spite of many attempts to eliminate illegal search and seizures, it has still been a reoccurring problem. Regarding the issue of search and seizure, the Supreme Court has developed a much

The Supreme Court consolidated two cases where the police gained entry into the defendants’ home without a search warrant and seized evidence found in the house. The rule of law as read out under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment posits that the United States Constitution has prohibited warrantless entry and search of a premise, absent the exigent circumstances, regardless the existence of a probable cause. The courts in Payton held that the Fourth Amendment made it a violation to enter a premise during an arrest absent an arrest warrant and exigent circumstances; a person’s house is a critical point to which the constitutional safeguards should be respected.

which stated that when the accused is being tried in a state court, he or she does not have the protection of the exclusionary rule, which protects against illegal search

In 1949, Wolf v. the People of the state of Colorado questions whether or not the states can deny the due process law that is required under the Fourth Amendment in a state offense. (FindLaw, 2014) Dr. Wolf was in trial for conspiracy for conducting an abortion on Mildred Cairo. The prosecutors obtained Dr. Wolf’s appointment book and was used as evidence against him. (HENRIKSEN, 20140 Mr. Wolf’s referred to a previous 1914 case, Weeks v. United States, and claimed that his appointment book had been seized in violation the Fourth Amendment. In Weeks v. US it was ruled that any evidence from an illegal search would not be admitted in a federal court. Justice Frankfurter argued that although he agreed that the exclusionary rule was a great way to prevent illegal search and seizures, however, it was not the only way and he denied to imposed this act among the

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).

This case mainly deals with the interpretation of our Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects us from unlawful search and seizures. What we can learn from this case are: the differences in court systems, the elements that comprise the Fourth Amendment, and the controversies surrounding it. The text relevant to this case can be found within the first six chapters of our textbook, with an emphasis on Chapter 6 “Criminal Law and Business”.

The Mapp Court viewed other remedies, such as criminal sanctions, as being ineffective in ensuring compliance with the Fourth Amendment.8 Although the Mapp Court stated that the exclusionary rule was an essential part of both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, subsequent Supreme Court decisions have abandoned that position. For example, in United States v. Leon 9 the Supreme Court stated that "[t]he Fourth Amendment contains no provision expressly precluding the use of evidence obtained in violation of its commands, and an examination of its commands and purposes makes clear that using fruits of a past unlawful search or seizure 'works no new Fourth Amendment wrong'"10 In United States v. Calandra,11 the Supreme Court stated:

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

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?

In the case Mapp v. Ohio, the police received a tip that a possible bomber was hiding in the home of Ms. Mapp. The police went to Ms. Mapp's home claimed to have a warrant entered the home and searched the entire home. During the search Mapp struggled with an officer to see the warrant and was placed in handcuffs. The search resulted in the police finding obscene materials; Mapp was then arrested for possession of these. Mapp's lawyer argued that no warrant was produced prior to the search of her home, which meant that the material found could not be used in court against Mapp. This case was taken to the Supreme Court where it received a 6 -3 decision in Mapp's favor. The court stated, "We hold that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is by the same authority, inadmissible in a state court." With

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

Whether evidence that was gathered in an unreasonable search/seizure in violation of the 4th Amendment should be admissible in State court.

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) Evidence that is acquired in violation under the Fourth Amendment is prohibited in a court of law and unconstitutional.

In 1961, a women had suspected by the police to be involved in a bombing. With this suspicion, the police approached Mrs. Mapp’s home without a warrant. Dollree Mapp refused to allow the police the entrance into the home and demanded that they must have a warrant to enter her home. The police then provided a fake warrant and entered the women’s home. Although they found no evidence of the women to be connected to the bombing, they did find illegal childpornographic videos. Mrs. Mapp had been arrested and charged for violating a Ohio state law. In court, Mapp was found guilty, and was sentenced to time in jail. However, Mapp appealed the case to the supreme court. Mapp used the fourth amendment, stating that the search was illegal without a

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