Mapp v. Ohio
Facts: suspicious that the petitioner (Dollree Mapp) was hiding a bombing suspect and some paraphernalia that that may have been used to carry out a bombing in the state, Cleveland police went to her residence demanding to be allowed to conduct a search in regard to the same. The petitioner, after consulting with her attorney, refused to let them in because they did not have a warrant to that effect. The officers left, but returned several hours later holding up a sheet of paper that they claimed was a search warrant. They forcibly made their way into the house, conducted a thorough search, and seized a trunk containing obscene materials in the basement. They then charged the defendant for the possession of obscene materials in violation of state law. The defendant filed an appeal on grounds that the search conducted by police in her boardinghouse violated the provisions the Fourth Amendment, which protect citizens against unwarranted searches and seizures by law-enforcement agencies.
Legal Issue: should evidence obtained through an unwarranted search (a search that violates the Fourth amendment) be accepted, and admitted as evidence in court?
Holding: the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the defendant's conviction, holding that all evidence discovered in the course of an unwarranted search by law-enforcement...
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment makes it paramount for states to enforce the sanction of exclusion as they do the right of privacy since both arise from the Search and Seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment. Law-enforcement agencies at all levels of governments are required to show respect for the Constitution, the very symbol they swore to uphold -- police officers must not obtain evidence by infringing on the constitutional rights of citizens, and prosecutors too must not make use of illegally-obtained evidence in state prosecutions.
Discussion and Opinion: there is no doubt that the exclusionary rule would go a long way in ensuring that citizens enjoy their right to privacy, free from unnecessary and illegal searches and seizures on their person or their property. Moreover, there is no doubt that it ensures that government officials, particularly police officers, and prosecutors lead by example and that they uphold the constitutional guarantee by operating under the requirements and prohibitions of the Constitution at all times. Of course, if the government conducts itself…
K. Comment: I agree with the majority opinion. The Constitution is the absolute guiding law of the land, and the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that its protections will be extended to state actions. The Fourth Amendment guarantees a right to privacy and assures citizens that they will be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment also imposes a warrant requirement for the majority of searches, so that most searches
Mapp v. Ohio Citation of Case: 367 U.S. 643; 81 S. Ct. 1684; 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961) Facts: Cleveland police came to Mapp's home on 23 May, 1957, acting on information that someone was hiding there. This person was wanted for questioning and the police had information that not only the person but the equipment used for a recent bombing was hidden in the home. They demanded to enter but Miss Mapp
Terry vs. Ohio Terry Vs Ohio The issue of what constitutes a violation of the fourth amendment forms the basis of the argument in the case of Terry vs. Ohio. In this case the petitioner Terry was stopped and frisked by the officer on the streets. A brief description of the situation is as follows. Detective McFadden was walking his beat when he observed two individuals who in his opinion were "casing"
4th Amendment's evolution and history, together with the "search and seizure" law. 4th Amendment Background People's rights of being secure in personal effects, papers, houses and persons, against unreasonable seizures and searches, may not be breached, nor shall any warrants be issued, but in case of probable cause, which is supported by affirmation or oath, and describes, particularly, the place that must be searched, or the things or individuals that should
" The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly provided the same limitations on the individual state's as existed for the federal government in regards to civil liberties and protections, and therefore the same exclusionary rule based on the Fourth Amendment was held to apply to state proceedings. This directly overturned the ruling in Wolf v. Colorado, which stated explicitly that the Fourteenth Amendment did not disallow illegally obtained evidence from being used in
In the case of Bowers v. Hardwick the United States Supreme Court failed to strike down Georgia's sodomy laws, as they applied to homosexuals, because rather than treat the matter as one of privacy rights, the court instead viewed the case from the perspective of whether there existed within the United States and its traditions, a right to engage in homosexual activity. In the Supreme Court's opinion, privacy in this