Mcfadden V. Ohio Legal Case Study

You’re right! The exclusionary rule is very important especially in ensuring that the police officers abide by the fourth amendment and conduct legal searches and seizures. The problem is sometimes police officers make bad judgments and try to patch it up by performing illegal actions. In addition, unlawful searches and seizures may lead to death. The Chief Justice makes a good point, because gathering evidence to prove the crime should be the prime goal. I also believe that police misconduct is over exaggerated now days, but I can admit that it still occurs today.

At the urging of her attorney, Mapp appealed her conviction on the grounds that her First Amendment right had been violated. Her argument was that she was well within her rights to have been in the possession of the explicit material found during the search of her home. Interestingly enough, when her case went before the Supreme Court it was not the First Amendment that was addressed, but the Fourth Amendment. The argument supporting Mapp highlighted the fact that a search warrant was never produced at her original trial, so evidence against her should not have been used. Due to the fact that the evidence was seized illegally by the police without a warrant, the police violated her Fourth Amendment right. The Constitutional issue surrounding the case of Mapp v. Ohio involves the Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) Search and Seizure. Amendment IV was passed by Congress on September 25, 1789 and ratified on December 15, 1791. According to the National Constitution Center, “Amendment IV people have the right 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.” (Amendment IV Search and

Ohio: Guarding Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures” explains the case in its entirety. Since the Supreme Court inception, the court had held little cases regarding privacy rights of citizens (Long 40). The Justices would have to declare an official position on the exclusionary rule that already applied to the federal government (Hoffer 2017). Dollree Mapp was an African-American woman who home was searched by police officers in Cleveland, Ohio. The police officers claimed to have obtained a search warrant and entered her home without her approval or that of her lawyer (Long 6-9). In a case that went to the Supreme Court, the Court reversed the prior court’s decision forcing states to enforce the exclusionary rule (Hoffer 2017). In terms of legal matters, defense attorneys could challenge evidence seized by police officers before they were admissible in court cases. No longer would court producers be simple, as defense attorneys could challenge the evidence the prosecutor sought to include in the court cases (Hoffer 2017). Combined with the ACLU power, and the counterculture era of the United States there were numerous gains in the fight for individual rights. Minorities targeted like Mapp were better equipped to challenge evidence resulting from raids on their

First, it confirms that a proper understanding of constitutional law is extremely important and that without proper documentation, it's moot. In this instance, it appears that the officers could have easily based their search on the Motor Vehicle Exception (the person had narcotics in his possession), but instead, they based their search on an inventory...and documented it in that manner. Unlike the case above, the court did not take that into consideration...they merely ruled on the contested point (whether or not towing the vehicle was lawful). In this instance, the court said that the vehicle was legally parked and the officers had no justification to tow. As such, the search (and case) was lost. This one seems like a no-brainer as far as what exception the search should have been based on...we always (I hate using the word always, since it'll make a liar out of me) base our vehicle searches on the Motor Vehicle Exception when we can. It's the most easily defended. All we need to document is our probably cause. If we have that, there isn't much to contest. Then the defendant has to fall back to whether or not we had a legal right to be where we were (valid stop...). The last point, keep in mind that contempt of cop is not a valid reason to tow a vehicle (that's like fining them before the conviction...they have to pay to get their vehicle out). If the vehicle is not evidence, and is legally parked, leave it if that's what is

This was an important case in criminal procedure in which the Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against ‘unreasonable searches and seizures’ in state courts, as well as federal courts. (Mapp v. Ohio, 2012)

These guidelines are written to serve a purpose and as a guide for when conducting a search and seizure. According to Cornell University Law School a search warrant is “A search warrant is a warrant issued by the competent authority authorizing a police officer to search a specified place for evidence even without the occupant’s consent. A search warrant is generally required to validate a Fourth Amendment search, subject to a few exceptions”. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/search_warrant , n.d) These officers used their power to search other individual’s property. Not only did they interpret the search warrant meaning as let them do whatever they pleased, they also broke the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment is “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”. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment. N.d.) These guidelines were put in order to protect all parties involved. These guidelines/laws were explicit and expressed I am sure several times through police training and through the job. However, being a police officer they interpreted that nothing bad would happen to them. Individuals of the law sometimes feel they are

At about two thirty in the afternoon on October 31, 1963, a detective with the Cleveland police department was near the location of 1276 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio. The detective was Martin McFadden who has been a police officer for thirty-nine years, and for thirty-five of those years he has been a detective. Detective McFadden for the past thirty years has been patrolling the downtown business district for shoplifters and pick picketers. In doing this, McFadden had developed a routine around how he observes people. On this day, John W. Terry and Richard Chilton caught the attention of detective McFadden. Detective McFadden observed both Terry and Chilton standing in front of a shopping store. One of the men would walk south on Hurron Road and then look into a store window, and then walk a short distance farther, and then turn back to

“Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee’s vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant or show that another exception to the warrant requirement applies. The Arizona Supreme Court correctly held that this case involved an unreasonable search. Accordingly, the judgment of the State Supreme Court is affirmed” (Stevens 2009).

violated the Fourth Amendment. The court said “he did not violate it because he had a reasonable grounds for suspecting three men to be armed”. The officer had the right to search them because of “reasonable grounds” and for his safety. In the court case the officer was just trying to just keep the people safe. I think he had every right to search

Hey guys, I have more information all about the case McCulloch vs.Maryland. Maryland has decided to levy a tax requiring all banks not chartered by Maryland to pay a tax. James McCulloch, cashier of at the Bank of the United States in Baltimore, has refused to pay the tax;Maryland has decided to sue! After losing in state court, he has now brought it to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has now ruled that individual states cannot interfere with operations of the national government, whose laws are supreme.

In criminal law the most significant body in history is the Supreme Court. It is known as the “highest court in the land”. The landmark cases heard by the court are carefully chosen by the esteemed justices. The choices are usually based on cases that will have significance to more than just the parties involved in the case. They look at cases that will have a wide range effect for the country, and cases that lower courts struggled to come to a conclusion about. The case that was chosen for this essay was Ohio v. Clark. In this report the case will be summarized as well as discussed as to merits of the case and the decisions of the court.

of the arrested persons. Some have had their Fourth Amendment rights violated due to searches that were erroneous

Multiple reports have shown that police are taking their jobs so seriously, they are willing to break the rules. This results in people losing their rights to privacy. What people do not understand is that they do have the power to say no when a police officer asks to search their cars or their person when there is no probable cause. The bone of contention is that people tend to have no will power to abnegate an officer. With that being said, people should understand the limits that cops can and cannot reach when it comes to arresting or fining a person under certain circumstances. If a person has evidence that there is no justification for the cop to search them, then in no way is it wrong to say that they do not give them the right to search.

“The Supreme Court and Police Searches” by the editorial board for The New York Times is about the case being argued in front of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of the United States needs to decide whether the evidence an officer obtained illegally would be used in court or thrown out due to the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule states any evidence illegally obtained can not be used against the wrongdoer. In the case being brought before the Supreme Court, an officer was informed of drugs being sold out of someone's house and was suspicious of the activity. The officer stopped, Edward Stieff, one of the men he saw leaving the house and asked for identification. After the officer ran Edward’s information he was informed of the warrant currently on Edward. Then the officer conducted a search where he found drugs. The reason the supreme court is involved is on the basis of did the officer have the right to stop Edward. The Utah Supreme Court has ruled the drug evidence against Edward was inadmissible. Now the decision is left to the Supreme Court (“The Supreme Court and

By all means, there is a possibility the judge may dismiss the case after “the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine” is presented as a part of the defense’s approach to counter against the prosecution (Gardner & Anderson, 2016). The judge could rule the search and seizure was unreasonable and unlawful, therefore none of the evidence is admissible. Every citizen in the United States is protected by the due process clause located in the Fifth Amendment, which requires government officials to abide by law and conduct fair procedures (“Due process,” n.d.). In this case, the defendant was deprived of due process rights when the officer misconduct occurred (“Due process,” n.d.). As a result of Constitutional violations, the judge may review the instances