Mapp versus Ohio was the criminal case during which the United States Supreme Court put into law that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment may not be used in state or federal courts (Stephens, 2006). Therefore, the only evidence that would be deemed appropriate…
In 1957, it was believed by the Cleveland Police Department that Dollree Mapp and her daughter were hiding a wanted suspected bombing fugitive at their home. Upon demanding entrance into her home, Mapp was advised by her attorney to deny them entrance as they did not possess the proper search papers. As time passed, more officers arrived at her home, still demanding entrance. Tired of being denied, they forced a door open and made their way into Mapp’s house. Immediately, Mapp required them to show proof that they had the authority to enter her house at all; in response, the officers procured a warrant, which turned out to be just a piece of paper completely unrelated to a search warrant. Although Mapp was able to grab the “warrant”, it was pulled from her later, and when confronted in court, the police were unable to show proof that the document had been real.
As the officers searched the house for the bombing suspect, they find a trunk in Mapp’s basement that contains a variety of “lewd and lascivious (Cohen, 2009)” books and photographs. Even though Mapp claimed that the trunk was being held for a friend, police still arrested her, as the possession of these materials were against Ohio law. However, despite what police found, there was never any hint of a fugitive or any wanted person in the house. All the same, Mapp was convicted by the Court of Common Pleas based on the material that had been found in her home.
When Mapp tried to appeal to the Ohio Court of Appeals, she was again to be found in the wrong. She took her case to the Supreme Court of Ohio, where her attorney fought that Mapp has no reason to have been brought to trial as the evidence in question was obtained as the result of an illegal search that had been accomplished without the use of a warrant. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled against Mapp, claiming that the items from the trunk had been taken from an inanimate object and not a human being, allowing the ...
Cite this document
(“Mapp v. Ohio Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.net/miscellaneous/399998-mapp-v-ohio
(Mapp V. Ohio Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 Words)
“Mapp V. Ohio Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 Words”, n.d. https://studentshare.net/miscellaneous/399998-mapp-v-ohio.
When May Police Search Without a Warrant?
It is common knowledge to most Americans that police must have a warrant before searching someone’s property. After all, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states that “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 persons or things to be seized”.
The Historical Extension of the Federal Government's Power over the States. The fourteenth amendment, to the United States Constitution, revered for containing the Bill of Rights and imposing limitations upon the state. For the majority of constitutional law theorists, the main function for the fourteenth amendment is to define the state limit beyond which state legislation may invade on individual rights (Hammerstrom, 2004).
Criminal case outcomes are attributable to each new chief justice. Clearly, the replacement of chief justice with a newcomer who possesses differing values and policy preferences automatically produce changes in the Supreme Court's decisions. For example, Chief Justice Earl Warren treatment of criminal justice issues was incredibly less conservative than that of Warren Burgers (Smith & Johnson, 1992).
Smith owing to which he decides to forcefully enter Mr. Smith’s property and search his property for evidences. Consequently, the neighbor was able to find his lost properties in Mr. Smith’s house and called for the police. Suspecting that Mr. Smith would run away with the stolen property before the police could obtain a search warrant, he was convicted immediately.
S. Constitution was framed by founding fathers, they made sure this important legal document can stand scrutiny and will withstand the test of time, a fundamental law that can be applied in most situations that safeguard its citizens. It has many safeguards in it, primary of course is the Bill of Rights.
Under this case, the Supreme Court said that evidences generated through unreasonable searches and seizures which violate the Fourth Amendment of the United States constitution should not admissible in court. Unfortunately, this decisions of the Supreme Court only had binding
Articles 3 to 12, however, ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights1.
The first ten amendments to the United Sates
Criminal case outcomes are attributable to each new chief justice. Clearly, the replacement of chief justice with a newcomer who possesses differing values and policy preferences automatically produce changes in the Supreme Courts decisions. For example, Chief
The police play an important role in ensuring that the constitution is strictly followed and that citizens derive maximum social advantage from it (Walker 2012).
The police are expected to have read and
3 Pages(750 words)Research Paper
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Research Paper on topic Mapp v. Ohio for FREE!