Preview

Case Study

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1744 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Case Study
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1991)

Facts: Police received information that a bombing suspect and evidence of bombing were at Ms. Mapp’s home. Ms. Mapp refused to admit the police officers after calling her attorney and being instructed that they should have a warrant. After an unsuccessful initial attempt to gain entrance into her home, the police returned and pried open the door and broke a window to gain entrance. Ms. Mapp was only halfway down the stairs by time the officers had entered her dwelling. She requested to see their warrant and a ‘warrant’ was shown to her. She grabbed the ‘warrant’ and held it to her chest. A struggle ensued and Ms. Mapp was handcuffed for being ‘belligerent.’ Ms. Mapp’s attorney arrived and was not permitted to see her or enter the home. The officers conducted a search of the home and obscene materials were discovered. Ms. Mapp was tried and convicted for her possession of these materials.

Issue: Whether or not evidence discovered during a search and seizure conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment should be admissible in a state court?

Rules: All evidence discovered as a result of a search and seizure conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in court.

Analysis: Justice Clark filed the majority opinion saying: That the exclusionary rule applies to all evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s search and seizure clause in all state prosecutions. Since the Fourth Amendment’s right of privacy has been declared to be enforceable against the state through the Due Process Clause, the same sanctions are also enforceable against them. The purpose of the rule is to deter illegally obtained evidence and to compel respect for the Constitution. A state by admitting illegally obtained evidence disobeys the Constitution that it has sworn to uphold. A federal prosecutor may not make use of illegally obtained evidence, but a state prosecutor across the street may, even though they

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    Over time, technology has impacted the police and other law enforcement agencies with new devices for gathering evidence. These new tools have caused constitutional questions to surface. One particular case in Oregon of an individual (DLK) aroused such question. DLK was suspected of growing marijuana inside of his home. Agents used a thermal imager to scan DLK’s residence form the outside. The results indicated heat, just like the kind that is generated by special lights used for growing marijuana indoors. Constructed by the scan, a judge issued a search warrant. A warrant – a legal paper authorizing a search – cannot be issued unless there is a cause, and a probable cause must be sworn to by the police officer or prosecutor and approved by a judge. A warrant must describe what is being searched and what will be seized. 100 marijuana plants were found finalizing the arrest of DLK; however, did the scan violate DLK’s Fourth Amendment rights? The Fourth Amendment states, “The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall be 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” (Constitution). This amendment touches on the expectation of privacy in your home and person. The government is not unable to search you, your home, your belongings, or take your belongings, also known as a seizure, without a good reason. A person’s Fourth Amendment rights may at times seem to delay the world of law enforcement. If the police feel that they have…

    • 987 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, in the absence of probable cause that the…

    • 597 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    According the Fourth Amendment, “protection applies only to situations where an individual has a subjective expectation of private that society willingly recognizes as reasonable” (Maras, 2015, p. 84). Thanks to the decision in the Katz v. United States case, the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test is used to established when law enforcement are allowed to conduct a search that does not violate one’s privacy (Maras, 2015). Information that is meant to be private and is contained in technology devices can be protected under the Fourth Amendment because the person’s intentions are to keep the information from the public (Maras, 2015). For example, in the Katz case there was a phone conversation that was admitted as evidence, but later found…

    • 225 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The police searches are governed by the fourth amendment that provides protection against illegal search and seizure and requires that the issuing of warrants is based on probable cause. Gould and Mastrofski focus on warrant less searches. A legal search must be based on the concept of probable cause. As cited in our text book, The Police, probable cause is information that is "sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed" (as cited, Brinegar v United States, 1949). A police officer must make a determination about probable cause based on the totality of the circumstances, in each and every situation. Without the existence of probable cause prior to a search, that search would be held unconstitutional and any evidence gained will usually be omitted from trial, with few exceptions.…

    • 992 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Riley v. California

    • 561 Words
    • 2 Pages

    In the case of Riley v California the defendant and petitioner David Leon Riley was arrested August 22, 2009, after a traffic stop which resulted in the finding of loaded guns in car. The officer stopped riley searched him and took hold of his phone and then searched through messages, contacts, and photos. The officer charged Riley with an unrelated shooting that had taken place before his arrest based on the data stored in Riley's phone. The data found in Riley phone were images of gang’s signs and believed to be in a part of a gang. Riley went to try to suppress all evidence the officer had got from searching his phone on the grounds that the search had violated his fourth amendment rights. However the trial court denied his argument and stated the incident was legitimate to arrest, Riley was convicted.…

    • 561 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Business Law

    • 905 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The fourth amendment protects citizens from illegal search and seizure. Her attorney would probably argue that the police officer had violated her right that is protected by the fourth amendment. A search warrant is only granted with in an event where there is a probable cause. The warrants have to be granted by a judge. The exclusionary rule which was created by the Supreme Court rules that evidence which is “illegally” obtained by the police and all following information thereafter cannot be used to convict a person accused of a crime. In this particular case,…

    • 905 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    The scenario states that during routine patrol two police officers witnessed a man running and swinging a purse in his right hand. A woman was running and yelling behind this man to stop and return the purse back to her. Both officers then gave chase of the suspect and led them to a public alley used for trash collection between the houses. The man continued running and dropped the purse. The officers then lost sight of the suspect as he turned into another alley to…

    • 903 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    We have already gone over the exclusionary rules associated with unwarranted searches and seizures, now we need to look at warranted searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment requires that no warrants be issued unless based on probable cause by a sworn Affirmation, this applies to all warrants whether they are for search or seizure. In order to understand the concept behind warrants, we must also understand probable cause. The Supreme Court has defined probable cause as more than mere suspicion. The facts an officer is acting upon must be enough to convince the average person that the suspect committed or is committing the offense being investigated. (Worrall, 2012) In the academy they stressed this as less than beyond a reasonable doubt, but more than a hunch; which leaves a large area in between.…

    • 1090 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Ohio we are instead dealing with state constitutional law and not on the federal level. On May 23, 1957 three officers arrived as a two family dwelling in which Miss. Mapp resided on the second floor with her daughter from a previous marriage. The police were at the residence in search of a person of interest in a recent bombing and information pertaining to the bombing. The police made illegal entry into Miss. Mapp’s home and with her in custody began to search her home. There were claims of excessive force and Miss. Mapp was not allowed to speak with her attorney whom was on scene when police entry was made. Evidence was collected from various locations around Miss. Mapp’s home and she was placed under arrest. Even at her trial no search warrant was produced nor was there an explanation as to why one could not be produced. The state of Ohio claimed even if the search were made without authority, or otherwise unreasonably, it is not prevented from using the unconstitutionally seized evidence at trial. (MAPP vs. OHIO, 1961) The state cited Wolf vs. Colorado in which the courts found “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." (MAPP vs. OHIO, 1961) If the case had been tried in a federal court the evidence obtained in the search would not have been admissible, however since it was tried on the state level the exclusionary…

    • 1121 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    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 person or things to be seized.…

    • 1286 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The exclusionary rules are included in the Fourth Amendment which is to protect citizens from illegal searches and seizure. As such, it prohibits police officers to use evidence…

    • 315 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Wolf v Colorado

    • 542 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Rule of Law. All evidence discovered as a result of a search and seizure conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution (”Constitution”) shall be inadmissible in State court proceedings.…

    • 542 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Not one person can answer a question about the "exclusionary rule" until they know what is stated in the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary rule go hand in hand. The Fourth Amendment was put into the constitution to limit on the actions of overzealous officers (Peak, 2006). Then, one must understand what is meant by "probable cause." Armed with this information, we can discuss the definition of the exclusionary rule and some of its history. Also, we will list some of the advantages and disadvantages of the exclusionary rule and ask the question should it be abandoned.…

    • 687 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    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. The Exclusionary Rule  Determining What is Inadmissible – Illegally Seized Evidence • • • • Contraband Fruits of the crime Instruments of the crime…

    • 280 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    In the Fourth Amendment, it is said that it is “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Basically, this is saying that the person is protected against unreasonable searches and seizures. If this should occur, the remedy of suppression is put into act. Simply put, it means that evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment is not admissible in court, this includes verbal evidence. I agree with this to some extent. Granted, if someone goes rummaging thorough peoples closets and drawers without a warrant then it should be inadmissible, but if someone verbally admits to a crime under false pretenses, such as in the Kaupp case where he was arrested without probable cause, then it should still be admissible.…

    • 667 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays