Mapp vs Ohio Essay

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.

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).)

Evidence that is illegally obtained cannot be used in a criminal trial and officers must have a valid warrant before conducting searches or seizing evidence (Weeks v. U.S., 1914).

In the court case SMYTH v. LUBBERS, 398 F.Supp 777 (1975) the plaintiff’s rooms were searched without a warrant or probable cause by campus police officers that were acting as officials of the state. They seized a substance that was alleged to be marijuana and proceeded to arrest the plaintiffs. The court held that the search and seizure was illegal because, that two of the campus police officers were acting as representatives of the county police at the time, and there are rules in the student handbook at that college in place to protect students from illegal search and seizure, and those rule were not followed. Just like in Jones v. Rohward University, Deary Jones was subjected to an illegal search and seizure. This search and seizure is

At approximately 5:28 p.m., I arrived on scene and was briefed by Officer Nicholson. I was provided with the name of the victim Amanda Holmes (white, female DOB 10/17/1982). Officer Nicholson advised me that the victim was last seen by her roommate at approximately 12:00 a.m. I then spoke to the roommate to obtain consent to process the residence.

officers entered her home without a warrant. The court cited that the search was without probable

Another case that establishes the premise for determining the validity of the search includes United States v. Matlock. The question before the Court in Matlock was whether the third party's consent for the police to search the defendant's house was "legally sufficient" to render the evidence admissible at trial. Police officers arrested the defendant in his front yard, but did not request his permission to search the house. Instead, some of the police officers approached the house and requested permission to search from Mrs. Graff, who lived in the house with defendant. Mrs. Graff consented to the search and the officers found nearly $5,000 in cash in a closet. Both the district court and the court of appeals excluded the evidence from the trial, finding that Mrs. Graff did not have the authority to consent to the search. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to settle this evidentiary issue. Justice White, for the Court, espoused the

On October 16th The University of Findlay hosted a platform for debate concerning the Ohio state Issue 2. Dave Butland was there representing a vote no for Issue 2 and Dave Little was there representing Ohio Taxpayers for Lower Drug Prices, or a vote yes. Many people came to the debate to learn more about Issue 2 but many people left more confused or just as confused as before. Everybody knows that state Issue 2 is very confusing and many people wanted to go to the forum to learn more about the issue. Obviously the event was a debate and the two opposing sides had different viewpoints, but the one thing they agreed on, was that state Issue 2 is confusing. If Issue 2 is passed it will require state agencies to pay no more for prescription

the charge, and went to trial. During her trial, no search warrant was ever produced. The judge stated that there was considerable doubt as to whether there ever

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.

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.

In the Mapp vs Ohio state court case, the issue disputed was when the appellant Dollree Mapp was convicted of possessing “obscene” materials after an illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. During the year of 1961, Ohio police were looking for a criminal accused of a bombing and had been told that he was hiding in Dollree Mapp 's house. Police acted quickly and came to her house but when she didn 't answer the door, police officers forced themselves inside. Dollree demanded to see the police 's search warrant once having spoken to her attorney but police didn’t have one so they held a piece of paper to disguise that it was a warrant when it really wasn’t. Dollree grabbed the paper and when trying to read it, she was then handcuffed on the ground and police continued to search her house (Landmark cases). During the search, officers found pornography and other materials that were against Ohio State law in her basement. As a result, Dollree was arrested, found guilty, and sentenced to 1 to 7 years in the Ohio Women 's Reformatory. Dollree felt that justice was unfair so she consulted with her attorney. “She appealed her conviction on the basis of freedom of expression” (Oyez). Dollree’s lawyers argued to the Supreme Court of Ohio that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal (warrantless) search and how it was illegally obtained. “In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio

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 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.

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