ipl-logo

Mapp Vs Ohio Case Study

356 Words2 Pages

The case of Mapp vs Ohio set forth the precedence of the Exclusionary Rule. (Supreme Court, 1961) During this altercation the police wanted to search Miss Mapp's home in search of a suspect that was believed to be hiding there that was connected with a bombing case and may have been storing policy paraphernalia there. (Supreme Court, 1961). After contacting her attorney Miss Mapp denied their search. Only to have them return several hours later with a piece of paper claiming that it was a search warrant, forcing their way in to the residential home. The accused took the paper and hid it in her bosom only to have the officers struggle with her to gain it back, handcuffed her, and forcibly detained her after her pleas for them to stop. She was arrested for being belligerent. The home was searched and some pornographic materials were found in a trunk and taken in as evidence. (Supreme Court, 1961). After going to trial the case was eventually brought to the Supreme Court where the evidence was thrown out because it was obtained illegally it was also noted that at the trial no search warrant was produced. Thus, sparking the Exclusionary Rule. Any evidence that is obtained illegally (in this case without a search warrant) has to be thrown out. (Supreme Court, 1961). …show more content…

It would not deter a crooked dishonest cop. The rule is in place so that officers will not obtain evidence illegally and so that they would stop and consider their actions while investigating cases and to stop police misconduct. (The Exclusionary rule prevents the government from using evidence gathered in violation of the U.S. Constitution. (Cornell Law School, 1992). During the Weeks vs. The United States case the Supreme Court found that evidence seized by a federal agent had been obtained without a warrant or by other Constitutional

Show More
Related

California Vs. Greenwood Case Study

478 Words | 2 Pages

The case involves the question of whether or not the police were within their rights to search the trash that was left at the curbside without a warrant. The amendment

Read More

Shakel Negligence Case Study

695 Words | 3 Pages

Although, the police officers had a search warrant they had it for the wrong unit which placed a family in danger and they raided the wrong unit in the first place but then raided the right one where they find the evidence but because it was found illegally the judge dismissed all of the evidence against Shakeel “Blam” Wiggins because of the Exclusionary Rule. Now the reason the evidence was dismissed was because there was no specific address on the warrant and this means that an officer cannot just search every unit in the multi-family house until they find evidence against the

Read More

Mapp Vs. Ohio Case Study

316 Words | 2 Pages

In Wolf vs. Colorado the Supreme Court had decided that it did not. Illegally obtained evidence could be used in trials because the 4th amendment did not apply to states. The principle became known as the exclusionary

Read More

Mapp V Ohio Case Study

182 Words | 1 Pages

The Case Mapp V Ohio (1961) was a case involving the Cleveland police department and their forced entry into Ms. Mapp home peruse a suspect involved in a bombing. On May 23, 1957, three Cleveland police department knocked on Ms. Mapp's door to gain entry into her home. Ms. Mapps contacted her attorney and under the attorney’s instruction refuse the officers’ request to enter her home. She demanded that they return with a warrant. Hours later the officers did return with bag up claiming they had obtained a warrant.

Read More

Exclusionary Rule In The Weeks V. United States Case

475 Words | 2 Pages

The Weeks v United States case was the Supreme Court basis in determining to incorporate the Fourth Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause and apply the exclusionary rule in state cases. In this essay, I am going to discuss the reason why the Supreme Court determine that the exclusionary rule should apply to the state police activity. Prior to the case of Weeks v United States, the state police activity “were not limited in their conduct by the Fourth Amendment” (Ingram p.81) and the exclusionary rule of Fourth Amendments illegal search and seizure only applies to federal law enforcement officers. Basically, it means that state law enforcement officials can illegally search and seized criminal activity evidence and court don’t prohibit the use of illegally obtained evidence in the trial court.

Read More

Supreme Court Cases: The Mapp V. Ohio Case

621 Words | 3 Pages

A 6-3 decision was made for this case between the nine justices. The nine justices were Earl Warren, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, William O. Douglas, Tom C.Clark, John M, Harlan II, WIlliam Brennan, Jr. Charles E. Whittaker, and Potter Stewart. The chief justice was Earl Warren. Clark, joined by Warren, Douglas and, Brennan were apart of the majority opinion which applied the exclusionary rule and several earlier decisions that had begun the

Read More

US Supreme Court Case: The Mapp Vs. Ohio Case

955 Words | 4 Pages

Mapp was then arrest for the obscene photographs found in a trunk. She was convicted of the crime in an Ohio courtroom in 1957, but claims her rights were being violated. The Fourth Amendment also says any form of evidence found against someone that was gathered in a Constitutional violation is considered invalid and unacceptable in court. The Mapp v. Ohio case took place to protect and strengthen citizens’ right to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. In the end, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (6-3), in favor of Mapp, that the evidence collected is deemed unconstitutional.

Read More

Summary Of The Supreme Court Case Of Barron V. Baltimore

1009 Words | 5 Pages

When Weeks was arrested, police officers entered his home without a warrant by using a key and began searching it for evidence. The officers then turned over evidence to the U.S. Marshals that was used to get a conviction. Weeks appealed the conviction which eventually came to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court ruled unanimously that the search violated Weeks rights under the 4th Amendment. This ruling also prevented local police officers from securing evidence by ways that are prohibited under the federal exclusionary rule and giving it to federal investigators.

Read More

Pros And Cons Of The Exclusionary Rule

285 Words | 2 Pages

The exclusionary rule can make evidence inadmissible in the court of law if that evidence was illegally obtained by a police officer. This protects an individual from unlawful searches and serves as an effective deterrent for police misconduct. One could argue that a mistake on the officer’s behalf should not result in the release of a criminal. This assertion would be reasonable if these fourth amendment violations committed by police officers were honest mistakes. Unfortunately, some illegal evidence is found because of deliberate misconduct by the police.

Read More

Arizona Vs Gant Case Study

429 Words | 2 Pages

This is a landmark case as the State of Arizona argued the "bright line" rule was established in New York v. Belton, and the U.S. Supreme Court defined the "bright line" rule as to authorize law enforcement officers the right to search a vehicle's passenger compartment, including the immediate area of where the arrestee was in search incident to arrest, after a lawful arrest has been made and is a result of a contemporaneous incident.   In Chimel v. California, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a search incident to an arrest is permissible as long as the officer can articulate safety for the officers is present and preserving evidence is a factor. Furthermore, Thornton v. United States gave an additive to law enforcement as the U.S Supreme Court ruled that officers could initiate warrantless searches of vehicles incident to arrest of both occupants and recent occupants (Staff,

Read More

Mapp Vs Ohio Case Study

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

Exclusionary Rule In The Utah V. Strieff Case

1378 Words | 6 Pages

The exclusionary rule in the Fourth Amendment allows criminal defendants to be in suppression, considering contained evidence in the results of the investigation that violates the amendment itself. The

Read More

Pros And Cons Of The Exclusionary Rule

1191 Words | 5 Pages

Many observers claim that the rule is peculiar with reference to the laws of victimless crimes that normally force police to employ illegal means of law enforcement. According to this article, if trimming the overreach of the criminal law would substantially reduce the incidences of illegal searches and seizures then the difficulties associated with the exclusionary rule may be done away with. Arguments for and against the exclusionary rule focus mostly on whether it is constitutionally compelled, whether the rule deters violations

Read More

4th Amendment In Schools

904 Words | 4 Pages

The general public is okay that some criminals go free if it means police will not violate the 4th amendment. The exclusionary rule states that any evidence obtained illegally shall not be used in the court of law. It also states any evidence found because of the piece of illegal evidence is invalid. The exclusionary rule was first introduced in federal courts with the case Weeks V USA 1919. The rule did not apply to the states until 1961 in Maps V Ohio when they stated it was arrogant to have a rule that only applies to federal courts.

Read More

Arguments Against The Exclusionary Rule

493 Words | 2 Pages

Ohio (1961), the Supreme Court trusted that the Constitution charged the exclusionary rule as a remaking of a Fourth Amendment infringement. They saw the truths of the sample, the exclusionary rule which was the assurance of somebody 's protection furthermore required by the Due Process which portrayed the Fourteenth Amendment. The rule stated three purposes by the Mapp Court, the right given by the constitution and stated that when police admitted that they were at fault, judges then extended the violations in court. This would stop misconduct for negligence since the case of Mapp the Supreme Court has seized out many exceptions to the exclusionary rule. I would agree with exclusionary rule, searches are easy to get permission from most defendants.

Read More

More about Mapp Vs Ohio Case Study

Related Topics

Open Document