In the court case Mapp v. Ohio, the appellant, Dollree Mapp, was caught with obscene materials. Included were books, pictures, and photographs of pornagraphy. Though legal today, In 1961 any sort of pornographic material was illegal in the state of Ohio. The police had reason to believe there was a bombing suspect hiding in the home of Dollree Mapp. Mapp previously demanded that a search warrant be issued for police to search her residence. Once the police returned with a said search warrant, they searched Mapp’s home. The police searched places that a person couldn't possibly be hidden in. During the search, the police obtained pornographic materials in the home of Dollree Mapp. Mapp was arrested on obscenity charges. The court case, Mapp v. Ohio, determined that the evidence obtained went against Mapp’s fourth amendment rights. This case created exclusionary rule in the United States court system. The definition of exclusionary rule is a law that prohibits the use of illegally obtained …show more content…
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, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." (Fourth Amendment Wex Legal Dictionary) Were the taken materials from Mapp’s home protected under the first amendment? The court stated that any evidence obtained in search and seizure in violation of the constitution are inadmissible in court. Were Dollree Mapp’s fourth amendment rights violated? While searching the home of Dollree Mapp, police unlawfully obtained evidence that went against Mapps fourth amendment rights. The police did not follow the proper procedures of getting a search warrant. Therefore, Mapp’s fourth amendment rights were