ipl-logo

Mapp V. Case Study

489 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Mapp v ohio supreme court case

The police officers arrived at Ms. Dollree Mapp’s home, looking for a bombing suspect who was believed to be staying with Mapp. Officers knocked at her door and demanded entry. After placing a call to her attorney Mapp decided not to let law enforcement enter her home. (Landmark Cases) After a few hours, the officers returned to Mapp’s home with what they claimed was a search warrant (Landmark Cases); while, Mapp still wouldn’t allow them entrance; they used brute force to gain entry to the home. After the officers were inside of the house, Mapp grabbed the paper from the officers, and she was handcuffed “because she had been belligerent”. (Landmark Cases) Soon afterwards, Mapp’s attorney arrived but was not permitted to enter the home or see her client. (FindLaw) A complete search of …show more content…

The Supreme Court cited the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to justify their ruling. The Fourth Amendment provides an individual protection against unreasonable search and seizure, but it itself was not binding enough to negate the use of illicitly acquired evidence in a criminal case. Though, when combined with the Fifth Amendment, an Amendment that provides protection from self-incrimination, the use of this type of evidence is considered unconditional. (Laws) The Supreme Court previously ruled not to allow illegally confiscated evidence into federal trials, in the case of Weeks v. the United States. In my opinion, it should be mandatory that every state uphold these same standards, that are set foreword by the Constitution and its amendments. Since, the police entered Mapp’s home without any permit or warrant, I believe that all materials found during this search should be void in a court of

Show More
Related
233 Words | 1 Pages

This case happened on June 19, 1961. The case was about police breaking into Dollree Mapp 's home in Cleveland, Ohio without a proper search warrant. There had been information given that a suspect in a bombing case, as well as some illegal bombing equipment might be found at her home. With this information police decided to go to the house and ask permission to enter, when Mapp refused to let them in, three hours later two of the officers came back with more officers holding a piece of paper, they broke down the door. Police found nothing when they raided the house besides a suitcase full of pornographic material.

Read More
430 Words | 2 Pages

Transcript of Civil Liberties & the Civil Rights Court Cases Assignment Civil Liberties & the Civil Rights Court Cases Assignment Gideon v Wainright Dates: Argued January 15, 1963 Decided March 18, 1963 Background: Charged in a Florida State Court with a non capital felony, petitioner appeared without funds and without counsel and asked the Court to appoint counsel for him, but this was denied on the ground that the state law permitted appointment of counsel for indigent defendants in capital cases only. Mapp v. Ohio Dates : Argued March 29, 1961

Read More
674 Words | 3 Pages

On December 23, 1981, Thomas Sophonow, a Canadian man, was wrongfully accused of murder. 16 year old Barbara Stoppel was ruthlessly killed at the washroom of her workplace. Unfortunately, eyewitnesses mistakenly chose Mr. Sophonow as being the murderer. Eye witnesses stated that a man, whose appearance was very similar to that of Thomas Sophonow, locked the door and made his way to the back of the shop where he was presumed to have strangled Barbara Stoppel to death. Furthermore, while Thomas Sophonow was in custody, he showed an undercover officer a door locking technique.

Read More
3094 Words | 13 Pages

Opinion: The opinion for this case was 6-3 upholding to Mapp. She used the First Amendment rights for her case during court. However, Mapps also used the Fourth Amendment to the U.S Constitution saying that because it was an unfair search and seizure. Her house was her privacy and they were unfairly trespassing. 10.

Read More
428 Words | 2 Pages

A Washington police officer stopped a student at the Washington State University after observing the student was carrying a bottle of gin. After asking the student for identification the student informed him that is was in his dorm room. The student, followed by the officer, then went into his room get his identification. While the student was searching for his identification, the officer noticed that the student 's roommate, had marijuana seeds and a pipe on his desk. The officer asked the students if they had additional drugs in the room and the students provided him with a box with marijuana and money.

Read More
602 Words | 3 Pages

In 1988, California v. Billy Greenwood and Dyanne Van Houten was about a suspecting of selling and using drugs in Mr. Greenwood house a narcotic officer told the man to bring her the trash bag which Greenwood had placed out the street for pick up, but as the officer search the bags she found drug paraphernalia which was used as evidence to convict Mr. Greenwood but the lower court revoked it because she search the trash bag without a warrant and that was a violation of the fourth amendment. but the trash bags was placed on the street were any child or animal can unseal it so he could not argue about his privacy if it was out in the police for anything or any person to expose the content of the bags but the court stated “ the police cannot reasonably be expected to avert their eyes from evidence of criminal activity that could have been observed by any member of the public “ this means

Read More
621 Words | 3 Pages

Police believed that Mapp was harboring a suspected bomber, and demanded entry. No suspect was found, but police discovered a trunk of obscene pictures in Mapp 's basement. Mapp was arrested for possessing the pictures, and was convicted in an Ohio court where she lost the case in fighting her for first amendment rights. Then, Mapp argued that her Fourth Amendment rights had been violated by the search of the officers and got her case taken to the U.S. Supreme Court where she won. At the time of the case, unlawfully seized evidence was banned from federal courts but not state courts, meaning that the evidence found in Mapp’s home was used against her in the Ohio court, but not the U.S. Supreme Court.

Read More
1587 Words | 7 Pages

Question 2 In the case of Mapp v. Ohio, Dollree Mapp was at the center of an investigation regarding a search for a potential bombing suspect. The bombing suspect was thought to be residing in Dollree Mapp’s residence. The police originally approached Mapp’s residence and requested permission to search the residence for the bombing suspect, equipment, and gambling equipment. Mapp consulted her attorney, and declined to allow the officers to enter the residence without a search warrant.

Read More
403 Words | 2 Pages

The precedent was set in Terry v. Ohio, when the courts ruled that it was sensible for an officer to carry out a restricted search and, if required, seizure of weaponries on an individual that the officer realistically considers could be armed. The result of the Terry case was useful in the case of Michigan v. Long. In this particular case, the standard of the police search in the Terry case was expanded to include motor vehicles. According to the Michigan v. Long case, the court ruled that the police were within their rights of conducting a “Terry’s” search of the person of interest vehicle. In this case, the evidence gained from the search was not discarded as a violation of the person’s Fourth Amendment, but rather seen as being prudently

Read More
563 Words | 3 Pages

In this period, the Fourth Amendment was strongly upheld along with the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule is made so that police couldn't use any illegally-obtained evidence to convict a defendant. Chief Justice Earl Warren brought the exclusionary rule from local to state-level in the court case of Mapp v. Ohio. In this case, officers forced their way into a home without a search warrant because they suspected Dollree Mapp of hiding an alleged bomber, where they collected evidence so they could use it against him in court. The exclusionary rule was enforced, making none of the evidence found applicable to be used against Mapp in court.

Read More
153 Words | 1 Pages

Several exceptions to the Fourth amendment have been made over the past several decades, with some being understandable and others being questionable. Consenting to a search results in not needing a warrant, though this poses many exceptions and complications, i.e. the scope of the consent given, whether consent is voluntarily specified, or whether a person has the right to consent to a search of another's property. Another understandable exception is the “plain view” doctrine, where an officer (acting in legal presence) can seize plain view objects. The stipulation to this is that the officer must have had probable clause that the objects seized are contraband. Exigent circumstances, where it would be harmful or impractical to obtain a warrant

Read More
1224 Words | 5 Pages

The Fourth Amendment protects all citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment states any form of stalking, any form of eavesdropping, any form of searching and seizing are a violation of the 4th Amendment. This protects everyone of the United States(Oyez). Searching or seizing anything from someone in a private area without a

Read More
256 Words | 2 Pages

Facts Plaintiff filed an action for damages resulting from serious injury caused by a spring gun set by defendants in a bedroom of an farm house which had been uninhabited for years. Plaintiff and his companion had broken in and entered the house. At defendants ' request plaintiff 's action was tried to a

Read More
2659 Words | 11 Pages

The term paper will circulate around the Exclusionary Rule’s purpose, applications, limitations, and complications alongside with landmark cases pertaining to each component. The Exclusionary Rule is a legal principle stating that evidence obtained in violation of a person's Constitutional rights, such as the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, may not be used against them in court. This is significant in understanding how the Supreme Court utilizes the U.S Constitution to infer the writer’s intention as to what should be permissible today. The purpose portion of the essay will examine why the rule was formally integrated in American law, and how judges can use it to infer what the writers of the Constitution

Read More
598 Words | 3 Pages

differ in both a quantitative and a qualitative sense from other objects that might be kept on an arrestee 's person" (Garner, 2010, p. 5). Plan: Development, Plan: Communication (how does this case and precedent cases affect students, community, policy, etc.? The Fourth Amendment to the constitution is an unique law that protects United States citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Read More

More about Mapp V. Case Study

Open Document