Super Max

In the first trial she was given, the prosecution did not provide the search warrant that was used. The prosecution also failed to state why the warrant was not submitted, In fact the prosecution avoided the subject almost entirely. There was a reasonable belief that there was never a search warrant made in the first place, However the courts convicted her guilty anyways, on the grounds that she had broken the law whether the evidence was legally seized or illegally seized. The court also determined that the evidence had not been taken from the defendant’s person by use of brutal force against the defendant. They also stated that there was no law in the state of Ohio that prevented the use of illegally seized evidence, which was also stated in wolf v Colorado, In which the court held that in a prosecution in a state for a state crime the fourteenth amendment doesn’t prevent the use of evidence obtained by an illegal search and seizure. She was then sentenced to a women’s reformatory for a year, where she began to make her appeal to the Supreme Court.

Search and seizure is a vital and controversial part of criminal justice, from the streets to the police station to court. It is guided by the Fourth Amendment, which states that people have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure of their bodies, homes, papers, and possessions and that warrants describing what and where will be searched and/or seized are required to be able to search the above things (“Fourth Amendment,” n.d.). Interpretations of the Fourth Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court and the establishment of case law by many state and federal courts have expanded upon the circumstances under which search and seizure is legal. Several doctrines and exceptions have also emerged from the Supreme Court and other case law that guide law enforcement officers on the job and aid lawyers in court.

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

For as long as there have been Police Officers society has had to deal with misconduct and corruption in the institution. Through the nineteenth century, police officers became muscle employers used to violently end strikes. The rough police officiating and the racist Klu Klux Klan prompted the Civil Rights Act of 1871. The “anti-Klan bill”, intended to enforce both the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was the first federal law passed defining United States citizenship and affirm that all citizens are equally protected by the law. The 1871 Civil Rights Act, “Section 1983 makes an officer liable for deliberately depriving any citizen of the United States of his or her Constitutional Rights.”(Prusinski,

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 Fourth Amendment is one of the most important constitutional protections; however, several procedural issues may arise. As seen in this case, the validity of the search warrant was questioned as well as the extent of the protection afforded. A search may be illegal even if a search warrant was issued; probable cause is

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

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.

Mapp appealed again to the Supreme Court of the United States in 1961. The case basically came down to this fundamental question: may evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admissible in state criminal proceedings? The Fourth Amendment states, ?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?and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.? The Fourth Amendment, however, does not define when a search or seizure is

(Nolo)” Several police officers tend to abuse their authority to attain evidence out of their reach. They often abuse their power because they know that the average citizen does not know their rights. Consent is a huge factor when it comes to determining if a search is lawful or not. The trial case of Arizona vs. Evans also determined that “the rule is not triggered when courthouse errors lead police officers to mistakenly believe that they have a valid search warrant, because excluding the evidence would not deter police officers from violating the law in the future. (Greenhalgh)”

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.

In 1961, a women had suspected by the police to be involved in a bombing. With this suspicion, the police approached Mrs. Mapp’s home without a warrant. Dollree Mapp refused to allow the police the entrance into the home and demanded that they must have a warrant to enter her home. The police then provided a fake warrant and entered the women’s home. Although they found no evidence of the women to be connected to the bombing, they did find illegal childpornographic videos. Mrs. Mapp had been arrested and charged for violating a Ohio state law. In court, Mapp was found guilty, and was sentenced to time in jail. However, Mapp appealed the case to the supreme court. Mapp used the fourth amendment, stating that the search was illegal without a

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