Mapp V. Ohio And The Rest Of Us Too

On 11/6/2017 at 1400 hours, I Officer Graves, responded to 735 E Haggard Ave Elon, NC 27244 in reference to an assist. Upon arrival Detective Turney, Lieutenant Sweat, and Officer Peters were at apartment K executing a search warrant. I was requested to remain outside of the residence at the front door. At 1426 hours Captain B. Tillotson entered the residence and left at 1441 hours. At hours Officer Peters released Jacy Loshin from the premises after issuing a citation. At 1455 hours Officer Chavis entered the residence and remained until the search warrant execution was completed at 1530 hours, when all remaining officers cleared.

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.

Mapp v. Ohio was a very serious case that dealt with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment. This case got worse very quickly. Mapp v. Ohio involved a young lady and three officers. Ms. Mapp was known as Rosa Parks of the Fourth Amendment in her city. The Mapp v. Ohio trail was a monumental case that involved police officers searching a house for bomb evidence that lead to upholding individual rights against “reseach search and seizures,” making the case popular.

The case of Mapp v. Ohio began in Cleveland, Ohio. Police officers in Cleveland forced themselves into Dollree Mapp's house. Mapp demanded to see a search warrant, but the piece of paper they rudely waved in her face was not a proper search warrant. The Police believed that Mapp was helping a suspected bomber hide in her house. No one was found in Mapp’s home, but the police did find a trunk of vulgar pictures in Mapp’s basement. Mapp was arrested on the scene of the crime for the possession of the photos, and breaking the Ohio state law that prohibited the possession of lewd, lascivious, or obscene material. She was proven guilty and charged one to seven years in prison. Mapp claimed that her rights were violated when they searched her house.

The Mapp vs Ohio case was when police officers in a Cleveland got information that a suspect in a bombing case and illegal equipment might be found in Dollree Mapp house. Three officers went to the his house and asked for permission to enter, but Mapp refused to let them in without a search warrant. So Two officers left, and one stayed. Three hours later, the two returned with several other officers. They had a random paper, and broke in the door. Mapp asked to see the “warrant” and took it from an officer, putting it in her dress. The officers struggled with Mapp and took the fake warrant away from her. They handcuffed her for being “belligerent.” The police did not find the bombing suspect or the betting equipment.They did find pornographic material in a trunk that a previous tenant had left behind. “She was arrested, prosecuted, and found guilty of possession of pornographic

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

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.

Once the officer felt a hard object that he believed to be a weapon in the suspects back pocket which is considered an outer pocket and falls under the Terry Frisk law, the officer was then allowed to conduct a limited search of that pocket and reach in to secure the object. Once the officer discovered that the object was a small 3x3 inch container full of locksmith tool which is illegal to possess as well as the totality of the circumstances, the officer had probable cause that a crime has been committed as well as another crime in the progress of being committed. Once the officer had the suspect in custody, he is authorized to conduct a search of the suspect, incident to arrest. In Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969), the Court stated that an officer who has lawfully arrested a suspect can search their immediate area for evidence pertaining to the crime and for officer safety. The officer finding the diagram of the video/audio store in the suspect’s pants was evidence that was legally found since the officer had arrested the suspect based off of his probable cause. The fact that the diagram was that of the store that he was directly standing behind was additional evidence that he was there to

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

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

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.

The relationship between law enforcement and prosecutors, which goes hand-in-hand, can’t be overlooked. Evidence of a crime that detectives and law enforcement discover is as equally important as a good trial on part of the prosecution. If detectives aren’t able to find good solid evidence – that case usually isn’t bothered in being pursued. Several years ago, in the late 80’s, there was a murder case in Southeastern Oklahoma which now serves as a tragic example to the need for honest, constitutional work in the criminal justice system. Disreputable investigative procedures, fraudulent sources, and bad evidence were the foundation of this case that shattered innocent lives.

The basis of criminal justice in the United States is one founded on both the rights of the individual and the democratic order of the people. Evinced through the myriad forms whereby liberty and equity marry into the mores of society to form the ethos of a people. However, these two systems of justice are rife with conflicts too. With the challenges of determining prevailing worth in public order and individual rights coming down to the best service of justice for society. Bearing a perpetual eye to their manifestations by the truth of how "the trade-off between freedom and security, so often proposed so seductively, very often leads to the loss of both" (Hitchens, 2003, para. 5).

For the past 50 years, America’s criminal justice system has encountered several significant changes dealing with courts and policing. According to Marion and Oliver (2006), the historical Supreme Court rulings like Mapp v. Ohio and Miranda v. Arizona mold the way courts and law enforcement handle individuals charged with committing crimes. This paper will discuss the evolution of courts and law enforcement reflects the diverse and changing need for today’s population which is first importance, the urgency for cooperation and communication among criminal justice agencies and law enforcement within the country. Individuals must