Title: Mapp v. Ohio Legal Citation: 367 U.S. 643‚ 81 S.Ct. 1680‚ 6 L.ED.2d. 1081 (1961( Procedural History: Mapp petition for a writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court for the appreal from the Supreme Court of Ohio. Statement of key Issues: 1) was the search of Mapps home a violation of the fourth amendment? 2) Was the evidence used against Mapps in court illegal? Facts: On May 23‚ 1957‚ three Cleveland police officers arrived at Mapps Home to ask them questions pertaining to someone
Premium United States Constitution Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
Mapp v. Ohio‚ 367 U.S. 1081‚ 81 S. Ct. 1684‚ 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (1961) Facts: On May 23rd‚ 1957‚ three Cleveland police officers arrived at the home of Mrs. Mapp with information that ‘a person was hiding out in the home‚ who was wanted for questioning in connection with a recent bombing‚ and that there was a large amount of policy paraphernalia being hidden in the home’. Mrs. Mapp and her daughter lived on the top floor of the two-family dwelling. Upon their arrival at that house‚ the officers
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Exclusionary rule
Fact: Terry Teacher is scared of his student Lenny Loner. He was warned by a former teacher of Lenny Loners behavior‚ of how he kept to himself‚ acted strangely‚ mumbled to himself‚ and argued. Lenny was asked to write a short story‚ and he wrote a story about an unpopular student who went on the Internet‚ got information about how to make a bomb‚ and blew up the school building . Terry was concerned and and spoke to Lenny briefly. Lenny explained that it was just a creative writing assignment
Premium High school Abuse Education
Case: Brandenburg V. Ohio Year: 1969 Facts: Clarence Brandenburg‚ a leader of an Ohio affiliate of the Ku Klux Klan‚ asked a reported to attend a KKK rally and cover the event. The reporter attended with a camera crew and filmed the rally that took place. Twelve white hooded figures‚ including that of Brandenburg’s‚ were seen with a wooden cross that was burned‚ and Brandenburg the said‚ “We’re not an revengent organization‚ but if our President‚ our Congress‚ and our Supreme Court‚ continues to
Premium United States Ku Klux Klan Southern United States
Mapp v. Ohio‚ noteworthy court case of 1961. The US Supreme Court decided that when the state officers attained evidence through illegal searches and seizures might not be admissible into criminal trials. The case was about a Cleveland lady‚ Dolly Mapp‚ who was held for having obscene materials. Law enforcement had learned the materials in Dolly Mapp house during their illegal search. When the state convicted‚ Dolly Mapp appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Her argument was that her constitutional
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Amendment is clearly broken in the case of Weeks v. United States‚ it was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that the warrantless seizure of items from a private residence constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment. It also prevented local officers from securing evidence by means prohibited under the federal exclusionary rule and giving it to their federal colleagues. It was not until the case of Mapp v. Ohio‚ 367 U.S. 643 (1961)‚ that the exclusionary rule
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution
Mapp v. Ohio CJS/210 April 25‚ 2010 David Ross The Warren Court left an unprecedented legacy of judicial activism in the area of civil rights law as well as in the area of civil liberties—specifically‚ the rights of the accused as addressed in Amendments 4 through 8. In the period from 1961 to 1969‚ the Warren Court examined almost every aspect of the criminal justice system in the United States‚ using the 14th Amendment to extend constitutional protections to all courts in every State
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Exclusionary rule
The Fourth amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures‚ along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. The interpretation and execution of the Fourth amendment in the courtroom however‚ is decided by the Supreme Court in an attempt to find a fair balance between individual and community interests. The exclusionary rule for example‚ is a Supreme Court precedent that holds police departments responsible for seizing incriminating information
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States Mapp v. Ohio
Terry Fedrick v. Cliff Nichols d/b/a C&N Truck and Trailer Repair The term Bailment is derived from the French Bailor‚ "to deliver". A bailment is a temporary transfer of property to another for a limited time and for a specific purpose. The transfer of property in a bailment is only in regards to possession‚ not ownership. The bailor is the owner of the transferred property. The bailee holds the transferred property. The property is held in trust for the benefit of the bailor. A bailment is completely
Premium Tort Legal terms Tort law
Brandenburg v. Ohio The Supreme Court uses various criteria for the consideration of cases. Not all cases may be chosen by the Supreme Court‚ so they must wisely choose their cases. The Court must be uniform and consistent with the cases they choose according to federal law. "Supreme Court Rule 17‚ Considerations Governing Review on Certiorari ’" (Rossum 28).These rules are obligatory to follow because the Court uses it to grant certiorari. There are four basic rules for Rule 17. First‚ the
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States