MAPP VS OHIO

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s): 47
  • Published: October 28, 2013
Read full document
Text Preview


Explain the fourth and fourteenth amendments and explain how they contribute to unlawful search and seizures and how it contributes to the case Mapp v. Ohio 1961

Outline

I: Intro Paragraph
A: Police Tip to Mapp bombing Suspect
B: 3 officers, 7 come back
C: Arrest Mapp
II: Body 1 Paragraph
A: Amendment 4
B: Search Warrant Issues
III: Body 2 Paragraph
A: Wolf v. Colorado
B: Exclusionary Rule
IV: Body 3 Paragraph
A: Evidence to Conviction
V: Conclusion
A: Supreme Court

In 1957 Mapp v. Ohio took place in the city of Cleveland, Ohio the case details were that the police received word that Dollree Mapp had bombing equipment so the 3 police officers went to the scene and asked permission to search the inside of Mapps home, she refused and gave no permission for police to enter the home. With one officer staying on scene, a few hours went by and the police showed up with more officers and forced entry into the suburban home. From a case brief from Cornell Law School the police officers had no right to enter and Mapp had not been given full constitutional rights “It appears that Miss Mapp was halfway down the stairs from the upper floor to the front door when the officers, in this highhanded manner, broke into the hall. She demanded to see the search warrant. A paper, claimed to be a warrant, was held up by one of the officers. She grabbed the "warrant" and placed it in her bosom. A struggle ensued in which the officers recovered the piece of paper and as a result of which they handcuffed appellant because she had been "belligerent".” (Law.cornell.edu) When inside the officers recovered no bombing material but found pornography in a trunk in the basement of her home and she was arrested and charged with those images found.

Defined by the constitution “AMENDMENT IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”(law.cornell.edu) At the trial the prosecution team had no warrant to show for their entry and search of the location. So already as Amendment IV states above the police officers forcing entry into the home and obtaining something that even if they had a search warrant looking for bombs they couldn’t obtain those pictures because that wouldn’t have been indicated on the search warrant. “The State says that, even if the search were made without authority, or otherwise unreasonably, it is not prevented from using the unconstitutionally seized evidence at trial, citing Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), in which this Court did indeed hold that, in a prosecution in a State court for a State crime, the Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure.” (law.cornell.edu) Wolf v. Colorado set the precedent that states did not have to follow the exclusionary rule. “Wolf v. Colorado is overruled; I believe the exclusionary rule is necessary in order to make the Fourth Amendment right a reality.” (4lawschool.com) The defense in this case was saying that at a state level court they have the right to grant evidence in court even if it were taken “unconstitutionally”. “The Exclusionary Rule prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. It applies to evidence gained from an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment, see Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)”(Law.cornell.edu) This is the bias for the fourth amendment and falls under the constitution and the due process clause. This was the government’s protection for citizens against illegal search and seizures, and with Mapp involved in one the state court of Ohio tried and convicted her at the state...
tracking img