Mapp vs. Ohio
Review of Facts
* In the Mapp vs Ohio case the Supreme Court is faced with an issue involving the “exclusionary rule”. Dollree Mapp’s home had been wrongly invaded by police without a warrant. While searching her home they found vulgar images and books, a violation of Ohio’s law. Mapp was then arrested and illegally seized. * Parties involved in the case include Dollree Mapp, the plaintiff and the State of Ohio, the defendant. * Important facts in this case include: Ms. Mapp was illegally searched and seized. * Unimportant facts in the case include: how many officers were present. * Information such as why there was suspicion of her holding a fugitive is missing. * Ms. Mapp most likely behaved the way she did because she knew her rights were being violated.
Frame the Issue
* Legal: The circumstances in which Ms. Mapp underwent with the Ohio State Police were blatantly illegal. The illegal search of her home was a violation of her right to the fourth amendment. * Public Policy: American citizens have a right to say no to an unreasonable search without a warrant. The government must stay within their boundaries and remain constitutional. * Values in Conflict: The conflict of found in this case dealing with illegal searching is unethical. It is important for our government to be respectful of an individual’s rights even during an arrest. * Practical: Had Ohio’s police department had followed proper procedures and received an eligible search warrant from an authorized judge, this conflict would have been avoided.
Discuss the Arguments
In favor of Mapp: Due to unlawful and unconstitutional searching, any evidence found should be thrown out and conviction overturned. Her right to the fourth amendment had been violated. The exclusionary rule should also be applied in State Courts. *
In favor of Ohio: Although the search was unconstitutional, the fourth amendment does no forbid the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document