CRJU 310 Judge Oberholzer April 12‚ 2009 Mapp v. Ohio * Mapp v. Ohio * 367 U.S. 643 * (1961) * Character of Action Mrs. Mapp was found guilty and sentenced to prison 1-7 years. Mrs. Mapp and her attorney took the case to the Supreme Court in Ohio. * Facts: Three police officers went to Dollree Mapp’s house asking permission to enter into her house‚ because they believed that she was hiding a fugitive in her home. When she did not allow the police officers
Premium Jury United States Constitution Supreme Court of the 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
Should the Exclusionary Rule be Abolished? Since the introduction of the exclusionary rule‚ many debates have raged about whether or not it should be in place in our justice system. The exclusionary rule was set in place to protect citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights against illegal searches and seizures. As a result of the induction of this rule‚ law enforcement throughout the country has been affected and changed. Personally‚ I do not believe that the exclusionary rule should not be excluded from
Premium
The Exclusionary Rule and Civil Liability Mark McCormick Kaplan University CJ-299 Professor Donna Yohman August 30‚ 2014 In 1914‚ Weeks v. United States was decided by the Supreme Court. In Weeks‚ the Court made a landmark decision relating to illegal search and seizure by law enforcement called the Exclusionary Rule. The Exclusionary Rule provided that evidence “illegally seized by law enforcement officers in violation of a suspect’s right to be free from unreasonable
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution Exclusionary rule
1. Mapp v. Ohio‚ 170 Ohio St. 427‚ 166 N. E. 2d 387‚ reversed. 2. Dollree Mapp was convicted on one count in the Ohio State Court for the possession of obscene material. The possession of obscene material was illegal in Ohio and the time of the search. There was dispute of whether or not the search was permitted by search warrant. She was eventually found guilty of by the State of Ohio because the state said‚ “even if the search were made without authority‚ otherwise unreasonably‚ it is not prevented
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States Mapp v. Ohio
1 Exclusionary Rule Evaluation The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to exclude evidence obtained in violation of a criminal defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. It is also a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by the Fourth Amendment. Some exceptions of the exclusionary rule is barring the use at trial of evidence obtained pursuant to an unlawful search and seizure. Some other exceptions to the exclusionary rule are: (1) a second‚ unpoisoned/untainted
Premium Law Jury 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
The exclusionary rule is for prohibiting illegal evidence in court‚ this can be a deciding factor in most cases. An example of this is‚ they can’t fake‚ or plant evidence.They have to have solid concrete evidence.This rule is part of the fourth amendment‚ which a lot of people take seriously‚ these are rights given to all Americans. I agree with this because‚ everything needs to be done in a proper manner. If the evidence leaves the chain of custody or is collected in an unlawful manner this can
Premium United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
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 “The right of the people to be secure in their persons‚ houses‚ papers‚ and effects‚ against unreasonable searches and seizures‚ shall not be violated‚” Mapp V. Ohio (1961) dealt with that very sentence of the constitution. Were the officers at fault or Mapp? This complex question has a complex answer one that puzzled the Supreme Court and led to a change in criminal procedure. The verdict was a strict interpretation of the constitution. The fourth amendment was relevant because
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution