Dollree Mapp Case Summary

In this case, I am presenting an individual citizens Fourth Amendment protection captivated from Jones and others individuals. The government started investigating Jones with a suspicions conspiracy of drug trafficking. A tracking device installed on the defendants’ vehicle after a terminated authorize a warrant permanent to the Government to search and install a GPA on Jones vehicle. Antoine Jones and others with the same conspiracy of the investigation were sentenced life imprisoned by the District Court Juries of Washington District of Columbia. The jury found Jones guilty of drug trafficking and possessions. The 12 amendments proposed in 1789, that constitutions the Bill of Rights under no circumstance to protections individualities

One is the imposition on citizens Fourth Amendment rights. Another is the government’s interest for public safety. The extent to which an individual is protected by the Fourth Amendment should be determined by the risk the country is facing. In other words, if the country is under attack, society should give the government more latitude to access information in exchange for safety. However, the power given should be limited under check and balances to avoid overpower or abuse from the government. During times of war, clauses should be

For me The Fourth Amendment is important simply because I don’t want to get harassed by law enforcement but also as an American citizen I want to feel protected. Overall the Fourth Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights' significance are important, that many citizens today do not realize how much it protects us.

The Fourth Amendment is one of the most important constitutional protections; however, several procedural issues may arise. As seen in this case, the validity of the search warrant was questioned as well as the extent of the protection afforded. A search may be illegal even if a search warrant was issued; probable cause is

The Fourth Amendment to the United States 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, 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”. It consists of two clauses, the reasonableness clause which focuses on the reasonableness of a search and seizure and the warrant clause which limits the scope of a search. There are many views on how the Fourth Amendment should be interpreted, especially by today’s standards. The world has evolved significantly since the implementation of the Bill of Rights. As it evolved, time brought about numerous cases on the applicability of the Fourth Amendment. When plaintiffs are not satisfied with the decision of lower courts, they can

Initially the Fourth Amendment was intended to create a statutory buffer between the U.S. citizens and the intimidating power of law enforcement. Today, the general concept and critical goal of the Fourth Amendment is

The Fourth Amendment protects the right of people to be secure in their persons, ‘

The fourth amendment was created to protect the individual rights form governmental intrusion. The fourth amendment protects the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. This shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue unless it is upon probable cause. It was established on December 15, 1791 during the colonial era. When the 4th Amendment became part of the Constitution, it was originally only applied to the federal government. Then it was applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The fourth amendment is so important to American, because it is the natural right of the people and the protection from intrusion. Now in society many people do not understand that the

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 Fourth Amendment is important not only to the citizens but for our law enforcement as well. The Fourth Amendment is still evolving today, as common and statutory laws change so does our Fourth Amendment. This amendment has come a long way and will continue to serve us in our best interests for as long as we live, whether we agree of disagree.

It is the fourth amendment that this paper and it states “ The right of the people to

If none of these previsions have been taken into account I would have to say that I strongly disagree with the fourth amendment in this current date because we would applying a law that was created so long ago without any concern to how it should be updated.

In May of 1957, police officers in Cleveland Ohio went to the home of Dollree Mapp in search of a suspect in a bombing case (the police were also seeking illegal gambling equipment at the residence.) Dollree Mapp refused to let the officers in without a search warrant; after placating her and thus seeking a warrant, two hours later additional officers arrived with a search warrant--a warrant Mapp took from the police and immediately stuffed into her dress. A minor scuffle ensued, and Mapp was placed in handcuffs for being noncooperative. Although the suspect or gambling material was not at the residence, the police did find pornographic material and subsequently arrested Mapp for possession of pornographic material. Mapp was prosecuted, held guilty and sentenced for possession of the illegal material, and further, no warrant was offered as evidence at trial. Mapp sought relief for the Cleveland police force's violation of her 4th Amendment unwarrantable search and seizure rights.

Mapp vs. Ohio is the landmark case in which the Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures” may not be used in the statle law criminal prosecutions. Police officers in Cleveland, Ohio received tainted information regarding a bombing and illegal betting equipment in the home of Dollree Mapp. Officers went to his home and tried to enter. When Mapp asked for a search warrant a all but one officer went back to get one. When the officers came back they broke

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.