ipl-logo

Mapp Vs Ohio Essay

566 Words3 Pages

The case of Mapp versus Ohio became very contentious during the 1960s. The verdict in this case altered history in a gigantic way, and continues to effect the legal system even today. A search warrant was not present when police showed up at Dollree Mapp’s house on May 23rd, 1957. The police entered the home in search of a bombing suspect they deemed was housed in Cleveland, Ohio with Mapp. Also, she declined their entry because they did not have a search warrant, but they proceeded in anyways. They searched for the suspect and equipment that could be evidence of the bomber being present there, but did not find any evidence of it. Instead, they stumbled upon a suitcase in Mapp’s house that became very suspicious. The suitcase contained pornographic material and had shocking pictures inside. Mapp told police the contents of the suitcase did not belong to her, they belonged to a guest. Mapp was then arrested when the material was found, prosecuted, and found guilty. Mapp was sentenced for the ownership of pornographic material. A key element of Mapp’s …show more content…

The conclusion was determined by the unlawfully seized evidence that was received without a warrant. Without a warrant, the information obtained could not be used in prosecutions of criminals in state courts. The five justices that voted in Mapp’s favor stated that the evidence seized was in violation of the fourth Amendment. A justice apart of the case, Justice Tom Clark said, “We hold that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution [is] inadmissible in state court… Were it otherwise… the assurance against unreasonable…searches and seizures would be [meaningless].” Basically, Clark says that if you obtain evidence in a search that is not permitted and it is illegal, it is pointless because it cannot be used against a person in the court room to convict them because it violates the fourth

Show More
Related
455 Words | 2 Pages

They have also said that it is reasonable for any officer to do an immediate area search of where that individual is to make sure that they can not grab anything for a weapon like for example a knife. The Supreme Court clearly notes in its opinion that such searches have to happen in the immediate area of arrest and any such search outside that area must be made with a search warrant. In Chimel case the officers could have patted down Chimel and then done a search of the immediate area to make sure that no weapons were hiding around. But once they began looking all around the house that requires a search warrant. The Supreme Court reversed the California Supreme Court’s

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
1593 Words | 7 Pages

v. Clayton, held that the police officers did not infringe Mr. Clayton and Mr. Farmer’s rights under ss. 8 and ss. 9 of the Charter as their unusual behaviour gave the officer reasonable grounds to conduct a pat down search. This case is significant to us for various reasons. First of all this case shows us the circumstances, when a police officer has the right to detain an individual without a search warrant.

Read More
525 Words | 3 Pages

Based on these observations they stopped Dickerson and patted him down. The search didn’t reveal any weapons, but the officer did notice a small lump in his jacket and to him it felt like a lump of crack cocaine in cellophane. In the evidence suppression hearing, the trial court likened finding the crack cocaine to the “plain view” doctrine which allows officers to seize evidence of contraband in plain sight during a search for other items. Therefore, the evidence was admissible. Throughout the appeals of the case, the Minnesota Court of Appeals and the Minnesota Supreme Court agreed that the initial contact and pat down were valid under Terry, but seizing the cocaine was unconstitutional.

Read More
743 Words | 3 Pages

The majority opinion discussed the Fourth Amendment and explains now it provides the the ability to arrest individuals without a warrant when the officers have probable cause that a suspect has committed a criminal offense. During this traffic stop, the arresting officer determined a crime had occurred. It was up to the court to determine if the officer had probable cause to arrest Pringle. Chief Justice Rehnquist determined that the arresting officers proved a crime occurred and there was probable cause to determine Pringle should be arrested. According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, when three people are in the car where drugs are located and the owner of the drugs is not clear with no one admitting possession, it is reasonable for the officers to believe that either one or all of the occupants of the vehicle committed the offense.

Read More
488 Words | 2 Pages

According to the Fourth Amendment, a person has rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, any search in the Plaintiff home beyond his person and the area within his immediate control is unreasonable. (2) When the police officers arrested Chimel and search him, this all was legal, but when they started searching the house, this was illegal. They should have gone back down to the station and attain a search warrant to search the house for evidence. Therefore the evidence that was seized should be suppressed because they did not have a search warrant.

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
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
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
674 Words | 3 Pages

Forensic evidence identified PETN residue on Timothy McVeigh’s clothing. As a result from the bombing, 168 people were killed which included 19 children and infants. Timothy McVeigh was named the primary suspect in the case. McVeigh was found guilty and

Read More
537 Words | 3 Pages

In the creating of the US Constitution, the creators hit many roadblocks. It was difficult for the state delegates to decide on much, especially because they were biased and in favor of their own states. The New Jersey Plan and the Virginia Plan were two examples of the disagreement of representation within the states in the legislative branch. The New Jersey Plan was in favor of equal representation throughout the states. The Virginia Plan was in favor of population representation, meaning the larger states would have more representation than the smaller states.

Read More
584 Words | 3 Pages

The police violated Wolf’s rights and since there was no warrant for arrest or warrant to search his office the police was trespassing. The police officer who violated his rights was to be punished by his superiors. The judges decided that using such evidence goes completely against the Fourth Amendment which is a basic need to our freedom. States should follow this law but are not directly forced to. States using evidence that should be excluded in their “statute becomes a form, and its protection an illusion,”(Wolf v Colorado, 1949).

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
427 Words | 2 Pages

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated… We all know the fourth amendment. It's the amendment that guarantees our safety within our homes and our personal belongings. Yet, how much do you know about the fourth amendment? The fourth amendment is full of history, controversy, and discussion, even in modern day.

Read More

More about Mapp Vs Ohio Essay

Related Topics

Open Document