Mapp Vs Ohio Essay

Due to cases such as Terry v Ohio and Mapp v Ohio, when police found criminating evidence through an illegal search or obtained proof of a crime through an illegal entry of the home, according to the Supreme Court, this evidence cannot be brought to trial. The Terry v Ohio case decided 8-1 on the grounds of the officer having “a hunch” that Terry had a weapon, this was ruled unconstitutional. Mapp v Ohio was decided 6-3 with the premise “[The Supreme Court] declared that "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by [the Fourth Amendment], inadmissible in a state court."” (Oyez-Mapp). The punishment of police officers and law enforcement has ranged from lawsuits by the victim, consent decrees, citizen review boards, or, rarely, prosecuting the officer (England).
Not allowing illegally or improperly obtained evidence in a trial has both positives and negatives. The beneficial effects is that it deters law enforcement from breaking the law and illegally searching and seizing persons or property. However, similar to criminals, police officers will not usually think about the repercussions when committing the crime, in this case unlawfully obtaining evidence. Another positive result of not recognizing illegitimate proof is to force a trust in

In the Terry v Ohio case, “The officer stopped and frisked the three men, and found weapons on two of them. Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon...” (Oyez-Terry) the two victims of the unlawful behavior by the officer were obviously guilty of carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. Yet, because of the policeman illegally searched and seized the weapons from the three men on that street corner, the evidence had to be thrown away according to the Supreme Court, even though the evidence conclusively proved guilt in the