ipl-logo

A Brief Note On Mapp V. Ohio

668 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Analysis about mapp v ohio

• In 1957 the police of Ohio received an anonymous notification that the suspect of a bombing was hiding in Dollree Mapp’s house. • The police of Ohio went to Mapps house and demanded to search the house; she denied them the access to her property and demanded a search warrant. • After the police first try to gain access to the house, they went a second time and forced their entry to the property. • Mapp requested the search warrant to which the police only showed her a piece of paper, one that she could not had access. • The Ohio police registered Mapp’s house without her consentient or the warrant, the suspect was not found anywhere in the property. Instead, they found “lewd and lascivious” material; something that was a violation of the law in the state of Ohio, because of this Mapp’s was charged and arrested. • In the trial the officers who searched Mapp’s house did not present evidence of the search warrant that they supposedly used during the search of the house. • Mapp’s was found guilty in the trial and sentenced from 1 to 7 years in jail. • The case was taken to the Supreme Court of Ohio were Mapp’s attorney claimed that the evidence …show more content…

Constitution protects the individual rights of its citizens. In this case, even if Ohio had its own laws it was shown that the supreme law has more weight in some cases than the state. Every individual citizen of the United States has the same rights, and they cannot be violated in any aspect. In the case of Mapp v Ohio the officers violated the privacy of Mapp and made a search to a private property without the proper documentation in this case the search warrant. Even if the officers did not cause any harm to any of the individuals living at the property, the evidence found should not be considered as valid to present it at a trial. The state of Ohio followed that that the Fourteenth Amendment would apply in this case, but it did not since it

Show More
Related
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
149 Words | 1 Pages

Yesterday, Sloan Jackson, age 18 was put on trial for stealing a shirt from Famous Fashions in Merchandise Mall. He supposedly ran out of the store with a lump (which was the same color as the stolen shirt) in his jacket to go to Record Mart because there was a big sale going on. He then was found sitting next to the yogurt stand and the shirt was found in a trash barrel near the yogurt stand. He then ran away from the security guard but he was in the end caught and brought back to the store to return the shirt. At the trial yesterday the jury came to a verdict of being guilty after talking in the jury room for about 10 minutes.

Read More
1394 Words | 6 Pages

Since there was no principal plea agreement, the state trial court took his guilty plea and the prosecutor recommended a three-year sentence, made no recommendation about probation, and requested ten days “shock” time in jail; the judge sentenced Frye to three years in prison. 132 S. Ct. at 1404-1405. Frye filed for post-conviction relief in state court claiming that the failure of his attorney to notify him of the prosecution's plea offers denied him the effective assistance of counsel; at an evidentiary hearing Frye testified he would have pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor if he had been made aware about the plea deal offers. 132 S. Ct.

Read More
2176 Words | 9 Pages

On October 31, 1968, in Cleveland, Ohio a Cleveland police officer, named Martin McFadden, saw three men acting suspiciously around a jewelry store, which he believed they were casing a job. The officer, McFadden, walked up to three men and asked a few questions; afterwards, he proceeded to stop and frisk them. McFadden found a pistol in John Terry’s pocket, a revolver in Richard Chilton’s pocket and nothing was found on Carl Katz. The officer arrested Terry and Chilton for carrying concealed weapons and Carl Katz was sent free. Terry was convicted and sentenced to three years in jail.

Read More
488 Words | 2 Pages

He is also requesting that the decision be looked at by a higher court. Defendant: The Defendant believes that the arrest warrant gave the police the authority to search the house of the Plaintiff. It was given by a Judge in good faith, and that the police officer had adequate information to execute his duties. Holding/rule of Law: (1)

Read More
602 Words | 3 Pages

As time goes by the state of California argued that the trash at the curb is in a area where it can be controlled by the home owner and it is not within the protection of the 4th amendment also any person passing could have access to it and no one who put trash on the curb has an expectation of privacy because it is released to the public view by the defendant but it can cause a problem for the house search is admissible as a part of the prosecution case for illegal drug trafficking .As the case continued for Greenwood they argue that the “ Adequate probable cause “ to the search the trash but the evidence should not be acceptable without the evidence gathered from the search trash and the police would have no probable cause for the house warrant . Therefore the warrant and the evidence can’t be acceptable and they didn’t have permission from Mr. Greenwood to search his trash because he had a “reasonable expectation of privacy “ and the search warrant was not admitted for prosecution

Read More
1587 Words | 7 Pages

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.

Read More
646 Words | 3 Pages

In court, she moved to suppress evidence found in her purse and her confession, as well. The Juvenile Court denied the motion to suppress and found her guilty. The reviewing court was held with the New Jersey Supreme Court where they agreed with the Juvenile Court that T.L.O.’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated.

Read More
1396 Words | 6 Pages

In June 1968 the United States Supreme Court affirmed that the conviction allows police officers to interrogate and frisk suspicious individuals.(Chief Justice Warren) Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1

Read More
1019 Words | 5 Pages

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled to charged Terry because Officer McFadden acted within the scope of the Fourth Amendment based on suspicious behavior giving him probable cause to conduct the search and seizure of the

Read More
240 Words | 1 Pages

The first case that caused the Supreme Court to allow officers to authorize a search and seizure, was the Terry vs. Ohio case in 1968. The case ruled whether or not it violated the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protection from an unreasonable search and seizure. The Supreme Court then determined that the practice of stopping and frisking a suspect in public does not violate the Fourth Amendment as long as the officer has a “reasonable suspicion”. Suspicions such as a person that may seem like they’re planning a crime, have committed a crime, or that may be armed and appear as dangerous. The reason why this policy escalated was due to an incident that happened On October 31, 1963 in Cleveland, Ohio.

Read More
742 Words | 3 Pages

These actions did not go by what was established by an earlier, similar case, and by performing the scan with no warrant, the government did not allow DLK to conduct private activities in his own home. Although some argue that the government’s actions were acceptable because they only scanned what was visible to the public, they still used a device not readily available to the public to see inside DLK’s home. The government’s actions were unacceptable, and a warrant should have been obtained prior to performing the search in order to make it

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
1777 Words | 8 Pages

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous. October 31, 1963, while on a downtown beat which he had been patrolling for many years, Cleveland Police Department Detective Martin McFadden, age 62, saw two men, John W. Terry and Richard Chilton, standing on a street corner at 1276 Euclid Avenue and acting in a way the officer thought was suspicious. Detective McFadden watch these two guys going back and forward doing the same routine about a dozen times staring in the same store window. Next, Detective McFadden saw another third person join in the transaction named Katz exchanging words casing out the store front and Katz walking away.

Read More
447 Words | 2 Pages

In referring to the Pennsylvania Board of Probation vs. Scott based on evidence that he had violated this condition, parole officers entered his home and found firearms and a bow ("Pennsylvania Bd. Of Probation and Parole v. Scott | Casebriefs", 2017). Respondent objected to this evidence being introduced at his parole violation heavily on the ground that is was obtained in a violation of the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches ("Pennsylvania Bd. Of Probation and Parole v. Scott | Casebriefs", 2017). The parole examiner admitted the evidence and as a result, he was forced to serve 3 years back time ("Pennsylvania Bd.

Read More

More about A Brief Note On Mapp V. Ohio

Open Document