Summary Of The Supreme Court Case Of Barron V. Baltimore

Since the creating of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the federal government has grown in its influence over states by several Supreme Court decisions. The Constitution was established to create a limited role of the federal government over the states. The Bill of Rights was included in the Constitution to protect individual rights from an overreaching federal government. It was designed to be a malleable document that has been amended twenty-seven times. At the time of its inception, the Constitution was designed for minimal interference by the federal government for private citizens.

In 1833, John Barron and John Craig, who both owned a wharf in Baltimore harbor, sued the city of Baltimore for damages due to the City of Baltimore

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. This case minimized the effects of Barron v. Baltimore in that local law enforcement officers were to be restricted by the Bill of Rights just the same as federal law enforcement

In Mapp v. Ohio, the way criminal procedures were conducted by local law enforcement changed. Police officers in Cleveland, Ohio received an anonymous tip that a subject wanted for a bombing attack was hiding inside Dollree Mapp’s residence. Officers responded to the residence and attempted to conduct a search. Mapp would not allow the officers inside the residence based on them not having a warrant. A short time later, several officers returned to the house and forcibly entered the house with a document claiming to be a search warrant. The officers then began searching the house for the bombing suspect. During the course of the search, Mapp became belligerent at which time she was detained. The search continued to which the bombing suspect was located at an apartment inside the Mapp residence. Officers continued the search which included a search of a footlocker which was located in the basement. Inside the footlocker was betting slips, paraphernalia, and pornographic material. Mapp was arrested for possession of the betting slips and the paraphernalia. She was found not guilty on those charges. When Mapp refused to testify against the alleged bombing suspect, she was subsequently charged with possessing the pornography. She was found guilty. Mapp appealed her conviction which eventually led to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled 5-3 in favor of Mapp. Their