Case Of Mapp V Ohio Controversy Of The Fourth Amendment

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

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.

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.” –U.S. Constitutional Amendments

The Fourth Amendment has two basic premises. One focuses on the reasonableness of a search and seizure, and the other on warrants. One view is that the two are distinct, while another view is that the second helps explain the first. However, which interpretation is correct is unclear. In addition, law enforcement today differs sharply from the period in which the Constitution 's framers lived. During that period, no organized police forces existed that were even remotely like those of today. In contrast, today 's law enforcement officials seem to have broad authority to search and seize. These powers are not generally subject to either statutory or regulatory control, and common law limitations are generally ill defined and

the weapons voided the defendant's fourth amendment, stating officer McFadden had no probable cause to stop them. The motion to suppress was overruled on the basis that McFadden had the benefit of experience. The prosecution the argued that the search incident to the stop was legal because it was purely for the officer’s protection. The court then made a point to distinguish an investigative stop from an arrest, and a frisk from a full search. It was established that McFadden had the right to pat them down due to a reasonable belief that Terry and Chilton could be armed. After the court denied the motion to suppress Terry and Chilton pled guilty and waived their jury trial. Terry and Chilton appealed, the Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed it,

One of the most famous cases brought to the Warren Court was in 1961. This case was a turning point for the recognition of the Fourth Amendment and an individual’s right to privacy. This case came to the court after police officers forced their way into the home of Ms. Dollree Mapp's house after receiving information that a person who was wanted for questioning in connection to a recent bombing was hiding in her home. The officers did not find the suspect, but instead found a trunk that carried obscene material in the basement. Ms. Mapp was then arrested for the possession of the pictures and disorderly behavior towards the arresting officers. At her trail Ms. Mapp argued that the search conducted at her home violated

Mapp lived in Cleveland, Ohio in which she was suspected of having bombs inside her house. One day, the police came to her house without a search warrant; however, the police barged into her house and pulled a paper stating it was a search warrant, but they did not let her closely examine it. The police searched in her daughter’s room and everywhere inside the house, and saw obscene pictures while searching; therefore, they arrested her. The court found her guilty, but she appealed her case to the Supreme Court of Ohio. The Supreme Court said that the police’s action are probably illegal, but the pictures could be used against her.

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 - The evidence that was found illegally cannot be used on a trial.

Also at the trail the search warrant was not shown to her or her attorney, nor was it explained when asked. Of course the court found her guilty, and got sentenced one to seven years in prison, so she then appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court. She did not get an appeal so she appealed again, but to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court then took the case and study it. During the time or year of the case The Supreme Court did not allow unlawfully seized evidence, but the state courts did. That is why Mapp was still found guilty at the state level, and The U.S. Supreme Court was best for

case of Mapp v. Ohio. Exclusionary rule is that any evidence that is illegally seized

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.

Mapp was acquitted of the gambling charges, which were a misdemeanor. At first, Mapp pled guilty to the obscene materials charge but later withdrew her guilty plea and pled not guilty. Her trial started on September 3, 1958 (Persico 14). There were two witnesses for the prosecution at the trial: Sergeant Delau and Officer Haney. There were three witnesses for the defense: Walter Greene, Dolores Clark, and Dolly Mapp (Persico 49). The police testified that the obscene materials were in Mapp’s bedroom. However, Mapp testified that the police moved the materials from the basement to her bedroom, and that they belonged to Morris Jones, a former occupant of her home (Persico 51). The alleged warrant was never brought forth by the prosecutor or the officers during the trial (Persico 54; 55). Nevertheless, Mapp was found guilty and sentenced to no less than one but no more than seven years (Persico 55). This led to the issue before the Supreme Court. Should evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admissible in state criminal proceedings (“Mapp v. Ohio”- Oyez par. 5)? At the time, unlawfully seized evidence was not allowed in federal courts but was allowed in state courts (“Mapp v. Ohio Podcast” par. 1). This was a result of Wolf v. Colorado, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the exclusionary rule, the law that makes illegally seized evidence

The Mapp v Ohio case originated in Ohio when police forced their way into Dollree Mapp's house without a search warrant. The police went into the house because Dollree was suspected to be harboring a bomber. The police did not find the suspect but found in the basement pictures that were obscene. She was convicted in an Ohio court. She argued her 4th amendment rights were violated during the search by the police. Mapp eventually took her appeal to United States supreme court. The evidence obtained at Mapps house was illegal evidence and was arrested for it.