ipl-logo

Mapp V. Ohio Case Study

1587 Words7 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Mapp v ohio supreme court case

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. After Mapp refused the officer's admission to her residence without a warrant, officers left the premises. They returned later with a piece of paper, claiming that the document was a warrant. Mapp took the paper from the officers and tried to place the document …show more content…

Illinois, Danny Escobedo's brother-in-law was killed. Escobedo was arrested the next morning and interrogated for several hours. He refused to give a statement to the police and was released. Another suspect in police custody gave a statement to the police indicating that Escobedo killed his brother-in-law because he was mistreating Escobedo's sister. Escobedo was then arrested again. The police told him about the statement that the other suspect made. The police and prosecutors informed Escobedo that though he wasn't formally charged, he was in custody and could not leave. They kept him handcuffed and questioned him for fourteen and a half hours and refused his repeated request to speak with his attorney. Escobedo's attorney went to the police station and asked to speak with Escobedo, and he too was denied. A Spanish-speaking officer was left alone with Escobedo and allegedly told him that if he blamed the other suspect for the murder, then he would be free to go. Escobedo confronted the suspect at the police department and blamed him for the murder. Though he never confessed, this was the first of several statements that Escobedo made about having knowledge of the crime. Escobedo was charged with murder, and the statements that he made to the police were used against him. Based on those statements, he was convicted. Escobedo appealed to the Supreme Court based on the fact that he was denied the right to counsel. The Supreme Court decision was in favor of Danny Escobedo. Escobedo v. Illinois affirmed that a suspect is entitled to confer with an attorney as soon as the focus of a police investigation of the suspect shifts from investigatory to

Show More
Related
391 Words | 2 Pages

They tested DNA samples, examined cell phone records and used a sketch that was drawn by a neighbor in order to find the killer. Miami-Dade prosecutors have not released anymore details about the case. Juan Perez is the director of the Miami-Dade Police Department. He released a statement saying, "Turn yourself in, or we will come get you." The teen, whose name is Charles, was arrested at his home a few days later.

Read More
510 Words | 3 Pages

Significance: The Supreme Court here expresses that governmental conduct like drug dog sniffing that can reveal whether a substance is contraband, yet no other private fact, does not compromise any privacy interest, and therefore is not a search subject to the Fourth Amendment. Terry v. Ohio permits only brief investigative stops and extremely limited searches based on reasonable suspicion including seizures of property independent of the seizure of the

Read More
491 Words | 2 Pages

Worcester v. Georgia By Sydney Stephenson Worcester v. Georgia is a case that impacted tribal sovereignty in the United States and the amount of power the state had over native American territories. Samuel Worcester was a minister affiliated with the ABCFM (American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions). In 1827 the board sent Worcester to join its Cherokee mission in Georgia. Upon his arrival, Worcester began working with Elias Boudinot, the editor of the Cherokee Phoenix (the first Native American newspaper in the United States) to translate religious text into the Cherokee language. Over time Worcester became a close friend of the Cherokee leaders and advised them about their political and legal rights under the Constitution and federal-Cherokee treaties.

Read More
549 Words | 3 Pages

In this case Kyllo v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled against the vitric of the lower courts on a 5 to 4 vote. The questions that need to be answered in this case, in my opinion serve a bigger purpose then the case at hand. The case itself is about a man named Danny Kyllo who was growing marijuana plants inside his home illegally. An officer of the U.S Interior Department got a tip that this man was illegally growing plants inside his home and went to investigate this. Obviously a tip from an unknown is not enough information to get a warrant to search the man’s property.

Read More
428 Words | 2 Pages

The student’s voluntarily provided the officer with additional drugs and provided written consent, to a search of the room although they had the right to refuse the search and demand a search warrant. Reasoning/Analysis of the Court The Court held that the "plain view" exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement permitted the officers to seize clearly incriminating evidence discovered "in a place where the officer has a right to be." The Court held that the officer had a right to be at the first students’ elbow at all times. The officer obtained lawful access to the student’s dorm room and was free to seize incriminating evidence.

Read More
876 Words | 4 Pages

In time, Armando Morales, a Jailhouse informant stated that Guandique told him, “homeboy I killed the *****, but I did not rape her” (Higham). Guandique was charged with the murder of Levy in 2010, but charges were later dropped due to the belief that Morales’s testimony was made up. Because of this the case disintegrated and the charges against him were dropped, but, he did face deportation back to his home in El Salvador (Kennedy). Even though there was no concrete evidence linking Guandique to the murder many people do believe that he is the prime suspect given the circumstantial evidence that proves his

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
955 Words | 4 Pages

Mapp took to court when police forcibly entered her home in Cleveland, Ohio without showing any warrant. The police suspected Mapp of harboring a bomb suspect in her home and possessing illegal betting equipment. After she refused to let them in, the police torn off the screen door and broken the glass to gain entry. Mapp argued it was an invasion of privacy along with a violation to the Bill of Rights and Constitution. While the police did not find either of the two things they were looking for; they did find other illegal material in

Read More
1394 Words | 6 Pages

On November 14, 2012 Pedro Hernandez was indicated by a grand jury and was charged with second-degree murder and first-degree kidnapping (Dienst, J., & Prokupecz, S., 2012). Although Hernandez confessed the case is still ongoing do to mistakes made during the interrogation according to Harvey Fishbein who is Pedro Hernandez lawyer (McKinley, J. C., Jr.,

Read More
1134 Words | 5 Pages

Still, the trial went on. Another key witness for Janice 's defense was the Sheriff 's office. Law enforcement had even failed to give the sheriff 's office a courtesy call stating that they were coming. The local authorities were sure if Janice Green had known it was the police she would have turned herself in without a problem.

Read More
542 Words | 3 Pages

When he reached the car, the small mob that had been chasing him with their fists and even some pipes ready to stop him, would circle around him. The fists started flying and connecting with Ramirez, the pipes were being swung and brought down onto him as well. The police were called, and by the time they had arrived the mob had nearly beat Ramirez into his grave, had the authorities shown up even two minutes later, there would have been no trial necessary to sentence Ramirez, as the crowd would’ve beat him to death. Instead upon arrival, the police found Ramirez a bloody and bruised mess on the ground. The crowd stopped the whaling of Ramirez so the police could haul him away, the only words Ramirez could say were “Thank God you came” (Estep).

Read More
1872 Words | 8 Pages

41. Mapp v. Ohio (1961): The Supreme Court ruling that decided that the fourth amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures must be extended to the states. If there is no probable cause or search warrant issued legally, the evidence found unconstitutionally will be inadmissible in the courtroom and not even considered when pressing charges. The exclusionary rule, in this case, is a right that will restrict the states and not just the federal government, including the states in more of the federal rights as outlined in the Constitution.

Read More
754 Words | 4 Pages

The police finally caught up to him and handcuffed him and his accomplice. Someone by the name Anthony Ford, also in his early 20s. The detectives brought them both for questioning including Anthony’s Child’s mother. She remained anonymous throughout this whole process.

Read More
535 Words | 3 Pages

After he was found guilty, the man was murdered and it was thought that it was by Maya’s

Read More
427 Words | 2 Pages

Back in 1975, there was a major case called, Payton V. New York. Theodore Payton was suspected of murdering a gas station manager, they found evidence within his home that connected him with the crime. What caused the problem was the fact New York had a law that allowed unwarranted searches if the person was a suspect. Based off the oral argument presented by Oyez, the police said it didn't count as the evidence because it was in public view when entering the home. It had to be appealed before it was determined as unconstitutional.

Read More

More about Mapp V. Ohio Case Study

Related Topics

Open Document