Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Criminal Procedure and the Constitution September 13‚ 2012 Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Facts: In Mapp v. Ohio (1961)‚ the police thought Dollree Mapp was hiding a suspect they were looking for in connection with building a bomb. The police officers lied and said they had a search warrant of which they did not and forced their way into Mapp’s home and searched it. While searching the home‚ the police found evidence‚ not for a bomb‚ but of pornographic material that violated
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution
second? The exclusionary rule prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in a criminal trail. There are many exclusions to the rule‚ which brings up the question of why the rule should even be carried out in the first place. Since the exclusionary rule is not stated in the constitution alternatives and changes can be made to the rule. A controversial topic always has people on both the pro and con side. Arguments against the rule convince many citizens that the exclusionary rule has little
Premium Exclusionary rule Law Supreme Court of the United States
Mapp v. Ohio On May 23‚ 1957‚ police officers in a Cleveland‚ Ohio suburb received information that a suspect of a bombing case‚ as well as some illegal betting equipment‚ might be found in the home of Dollree Mapp. Three officers went to the home and asked for permission to enter‚ but Mapp refused to let them in without a search warrant. Two officers left‚ and one remained. Three hours later‚ the two returned with several other officers with a piece of paper and broke in the door. Mapp asked
Premium United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Chapter Four – The Exclusionary Rule Vicente Farias Jose Martinez The Exclusionary Rule The Exclusionary Rule – Evidence obtained in violation of Fourth Amendment cannot be used at trial – The primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct – What other purpose does the exclusionary rule have? The Exclusionary Rule In Mapp v Ohio (1961)‚ the Court stated that any evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment could not be admitted into any court‚ state or federal
Premium Exclusionary rule United States Constitution Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Mapp v. Ohio (1962) i. Plaintiff‚ Dollree Mapp‚ was illegally raided by Cleveland police. After receiving information that an individual‚ wanted in connection with a recent bombing‚ was hiding in Mapp’s house‚ the Cleveland police knocked on her door and demanded entrance. On the other hand‚ the defendant was the state of Ohio. The police were looking for a bombing suspect and during the search found a gun and obscene literature. ii. On May 23‚ 1957‚ police officers in Cleveland‚ Ohio believed that
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Exclusionary rule Police
In the landmark case Mapp v. Ohio the United States Supreme Court ruled that any evidence obtained during an illegal search and seizure was a violation of the 4th Amendment‚ which protects Americans from “unreasonable search and seizures.” Because of this ruling all illegal evidence obtained is inadmissible in court. Mapp v. Ohio became a precedent for law enforcement and in a court of law. The ruling officially established the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule was created to protect Americans
Premium United States Constitution Law Supreme Court of the United States
The reason we have rules in life are simple‚ to keep order when there is chaos and to guide our behavior in a way that is acceptable by society’s standards. The reason we have laws and procedures to carry out those laws are simple as well‚ to keep the government from infringing on its citizen’s constitutional rights. If the government was to rid itself of the exclusionary rule‚ then it has the potential to be infringing on its citizens rights. The government could essentially walk into anyone who
Premium United States Constitution Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Police
The exclusionary rule prohibits illegally obtained evidence from being used in a criminal trial (Hall‚ 2015). Furthermore‚ the exclusionary rule applies to prevent unconstitutionally obtained evidentiary submissions‚ and the rule is applicable to items or confessions (Hall‚ 2015). After reviewing the exclusionary rule I feel it should be applied to illegal arrests too‚ unless the police obtain sufficient evidence independent of the illegal arrest. In the case of State v. Eserjose police made an
Premium United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States Police
Exclusionary rule was needed to deter police misconduct. Many police agencies will use warrantless evidence and use that against a person. That is the reason exclusionary rule was created was to stop law enforcement obtain illegally obtain it. It can also be called as “fruit of the poisonous tree”. Exclusionary rule also has a loophole known as good faith exception‚ that way in courts both these rules balance out each other. Exclusionary rule is a judicially created rule that prohibits the use of
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution Police
Contemporary Issues Paper: The Exclusionary Rule Jennifer Howell November 6‚ 2010 The Exclusionary Rule and Its Exceptions Introduction: The Exclusionary Rule The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement personnel. (US Const. amend. IV) Though the Amendment “forbids unreasonable searches and seizures‚ it does not provide a mechanism for prevention or a remedy.” (Jackson‚ 1996) After passage of
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States