Fourth Amendment, Exclusionary Rule

There are circumstances where people find warrants unconstitutional, but the fourth amendment is ethical through its probable cause, guaranteed privacy, and search warrants. Privacy to citizens makes them feel comfortable and protected. Without the fourth amendment privacy would be unavailable, the citizens of america wouldn’t feel very

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

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizures. (People v. Williams 20 Cal.4th 125.) A defendant may move to suppress as evidence any tangible or intangible thing obtained as a result of an unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant. (Penal Code §1538.5(a)(1)(A).) Warrantless searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable. (Williams, supra, 20 Cal.4th 119; see also Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) 508 U.S. 366 (stating searches and seizures conducted outside the judicial process are per se unreasonable unless subject to an established exception).) While the defendant has the initial burden of raising the warrantless search issue before the court, this burden is satisfied when the defendant asserts the absence of a warrant and makes a prima facie case in support. (Williams, supra, 20 Cal.4th 130.) Accordingly, when the prosecution seeks to introduce evidence seized during a warrantless search, they also bear the burden in showing that an exception to the warrant applies. (Mincey v. Arizona (1978) 98 S.Ct. 2408; see also People v. James (1977) 19 Cal.3d 99.) Evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search and seizure is considered “fruit of the poisonous tree” and should be suppressed. (Wong Sun v. United States (1963) 371 U.S. 471; see also Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) 508 U.S. 372 (stating unreasonable searches are invalid under Terry and should be suppressed).)

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

• Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is primarily concentrated in four areas: 1) defining “searches”; 2) the Warrant Requirement, in which warrantless searches are semantically precluded except in specific and tightly constricted situations; 3) the Probable Cause Requirement, whose exclusive provisions are closely associated with the Warrant Requirement’s proscription of police inquiries into same; and, 4) the exclusionary rule, which presumptively excludes any information or evidence gathered in violation of the preceding two (Rickless, 2005).

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 case of Mapp vs. Ohio is one of the most important Supreme Court decisions of the last century. Until this decision, the rights against illegal search and

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”.

Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures of certain papers, books, documents etc. Rules are not violated in it. There must be probable reason because in order to arrest a particular person without a search warrant. It possesses an oath or affirmation from the government. It has two fundamental rights as Right to privacy and Right to freedom. Search occurs when it has a correct reason that was obligated by the government people. Private individuals are violated from this amendment. A seizure happens the owner must has a right documents with him on his own property, if not the documents is seized and the person gets arrested. Sometimes the property belongs to other possessor but in mistake reasonable person gets involved in the task. The banning of unreasonable searches can violate many things to be happen.

The Fourth Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights which was established in the seventeenth and eighteenth century English common law. Aside from the rest of the amendments in the Bill of Rights the Fourth Amendment can be traced back to a strong public reaction from some cases back in the 1760s. Two of these cases happened in England and one case happened in the colonies. These cases involved some pamphleteers who would pass out pamphlets to the public in order to spread their word around. These pamphlets however ridiculed the king and his ministers. After finding this out the king issued warrants to have the pamphleteer’s homes ransacked and stripped of all their books and papers. Even back then the pamphleteers knew that their rights

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.

In the case Mapp V. Ohio of 1961, police forced their way into Dollree Mapps, house, suspecting her of harboring a suspected bomber. No suspect was found and Mapp was arrested of possessing obscene pictures and was convicted in an Ohio court. Mapp appealed to the United States Supreme Court and the decision was made that the Supreme Court said “evidence seized unlawfully, without a search warrant, could not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts” (USCourts). The ruling was decided by the fourth amendment, which is protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

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.

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, 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