V. Ohio : Illegal Search And Seizure

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

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

Ohio, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 19, 1961, ruled (6–3) that confirmation acquired touching base upon the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which denies "nonsensical inquiries and seizures," is not allowed in state courts. In this manner, it held that the government private guideline, which disallowed the utilization of illegally got proof in elected courts, was likewise appropriate to the states through the joining regulation, the hypothesis that most assurances of the elected Bill of Rights are ensured against the states through the due procedure provision of the 14th Amendment (which restricts the states from denying life, freedom, or property without due procedure of law). The Mapp controlling additionally upset to a limited extent the Supreme Court's choice in Wolf v. Colorado (1949), which recognized the privilege to protection as "joined" however not the government private principle. As a result of the inborn unclearness of the 4th Amendment, the extent of the private principle has been liable to translation by the courts, including the Supreme Court, which subsequent to the 1980s has bit by bit limited the scope of circumstances and the sorts of confirmation to which the standard

test, the exclusionary rule, and pertaining to Berger vs. New York, this case examined whether or not evidence obtained by eavesdropping could be used in court. So back to one of my previous thoughts that even if the founder fathers could not view the challenges that the future would bring their amendments, we as a people, through a number of different circumstances, have come up with new parts to apply to the amendments that keep them pertinent in our modern society. Also aside from the exclusionary rule which helps the citizens if evidence is illegally obtained that it cannot be used against them in court, but in the mid 1980s the good faith exception was first instituted. This was created to help the police force or any force in use of a warrant but held an error outside of their control. In short, this helped if the warrant held a mistake but it was not the policemen’s fault so even if evidence was obtained it can still be used in court even with a flawed warrant.

One of the most famous cases that influenced the Fourth Amendment was that of Entick v. Carrington. This was only one of many civil cases against officials who raided people’s homes and other places in search of materials connected with John Wilkes' political pamphlets that attack both the government and the King. Mr. Entick, who was an associate of John Wilkes, sued because agents had entered his house forcefully and broken into desks and boxes that were locked. They then seized pamphlets, charts, and other printed materials. The courts decided the warrant gave the officials the right to search and seizure and the ability to issue a warrant for all a person's papers rather than only those accused of being criminal ''contrary to the genius of the law of England.'' The warrant was said to be invalid because it had no probable cause and no record was made of what had been seized. The Supreme Court has said this case is a guide to understanding what the Framers meant when writing the Fourth Amendment.

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

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

New Jersey v. T.L.O. was an important case concerning the rights of the accused and had to do with the exclusionary rule. This case furthered the knowledge of the exclusionary rule that is mentioned in the Fourth Amendment. It was decided that the exclusionary rule applies to searches and seizures that occur at school by the officials.

On the other hand, the State of Ohio argued, “the Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure in state courts.” The state also brought up the point that the Tenth Amendment gives states the right to operate a separate court system. In response to this, Mapp argued, the exclusionary rule applied in the federal courts should be taken into consideration in state courts.

To the everyday US citizen the United States Supreme Court is a nonexistent entity that is not often heard from or seen unless it reaches a decision on a controversial case. Mapp v. Ohio was one of the controversial cases that the Supreme Court made a decision on in 1961. What were the facts of the case? What constitutional issues are in question? What did the court decide, and what were there reasoning of the justices? What is the significance of the case?

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.

Previously, in a 1949 decision (Wolf v. Colorado), the Supreme Court expanded some of the protections of the Fourth Amendment, however, it did not go so far as to apply those protections to the states. Specifically, the exclusionary rule (the rule that states that illegally obtained evidence may not be used against a defendant) was not applied to the states. Mapp v. Ohio was an opportunity to do just that. The Mapp v. Ohio case originated in Cleveland and concerned a situation in which police officers broke into the home of Dollree Mapp, claiming they had a search warrant. They told Ms. Mapp that an informant had told them that a suspect wanted in a bombing was hiding in her home and that they had a tip that gambling paraphernalia was hidden

On January 1, 2008, four lawsuits involving Brad Pitt were filed in Ohio. The first was brought by Matt Damon against Brad Pitt to acquire quiet title to one-acre of Brad’s land that Matt had cleared and built a barn on. Looking into quiet titles and adverse possession laws will determine if Matt can get title to the land or not. The second case involves Snazzy Jeff, a paparazzo, seeing Maddox, Brad’s son, dropped his Pokémon camera. Snazzy Jeff then came up and took the item hoping to find pictures to sell on it without informing Brad or Maddox. This may be a case of lost property or theft that needs to be evaluated. The third case involves Brad suing Jackie Philabaum at the request of his wife. At the parade, Brad took off his coat and

Despite the overwhelming significance of the rights protected and guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment, many questions and concerns existed regarding police and court procedures and practices. The most important of those questions was whether or not illegally obtained evidence could be used in courts. Before 1914, any evidence obtained by the police could be used in both Federal and State courts, regardless of any constitutional violations that might have taken place during the search and seizure of that evidence. Such practice has spawned multiple occurrences of police misconduct. Before that date, many police officers did not follow constitutional requirements. They could freely search individuals and households and seize evidence without appropriate warrants. Needless to say, that such poor performance resulted in illegal arrests and unjust prosecutions of innocent people. One of such cases had become a landmark and initiated the long process of reforms in regard to the Fourth Amendment and police conduct. The Supreme Court articulation of the exclusionary rule has come in Weeks v. United States case in 1914. That case has changed the Fourth Amendment and related laws forever. The defendant, Mr. Freemont Weeks was convicted based on the evidence illegally seized from him during the warrantless search. The appeal was initiated by the defense attorney, thus bringing the case to the attention of the highest Court. The United

[In the many rulings that have come from Supreme Court decisions one of the most controversial is the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule arose from cases where the court discovered that evidence was being presented in court that was in violation to the Fourth Amendment. The court constructed the exclusionary rule to place restrictions on unreasonable search, seizure and presentation of evidence in court cases. To understand the nature of the rule the details of it will be discussed in this format.