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 refused because her attorney advised that she not allow them to enter without a search warrant. The officers contacted headquarters and begin a surveillance of the house. Three hours later there were more officers on the scene and they once again asked for entrance to the home. She did not answer the door immediately and one of her doors was then forced open by police. Miss Mapp's attorney arrived and officers would not let him come in or see his client. Miss Mapp lived on the second floor but officers broke into a hallway leading to the basement. They produced a paper that they claimed was a search warrant and Miss Mapp took the paper and placed it inside of her shirt near her breast. There was a struggle between Miss Mapp and several officers and the piece of paper was recovered. Miss Mapp was also handcuffed as officers stated she was being belligerent. One of her hands was twisted sharply by the officers and she informed him that he was hurting her and asked that he stop. She was then led to her bedroom and her personal papers, dresser, closets, suitcases, and anything else...

A child's bedroom, living room, kitchen, and dinette on the second floor were also searched. After this police went to the basement and they found a trunk with obscene materials inside of it. The prosecution could produce no search warrant at trial and there was no discussion about the failure to produce one. Miss Mapp was then convicted of the possession of obscene materials. There was some concern as to whether there actually ever was a search warrant and the methods that were used to search Miss Mapp's home were offensive to what most people would see as a sense of justice. The conviction was still upheld because the evidence that was taken had not been taken by brutal or offensive force.
Issue: At issue is whether the exclusionary rule that is discussed in the fourth amendment applies to the actions taken by a state.

Decision of the Court: The decision of the court was that the exclusionary rule within the fourth amendment does apply to any actions that are taken by a state.

Reasoning of the Court: Several other cases were used as precedent in making the decision and many of these tied the fourth and fifth amendments together and also discussed unreasonable search and seizure. Self-incrimination can come from seizing information the way that it was gone about in the Mapp case and can sometimes be considered similar to extortion. A guarantee was found in other cases that were cited as precedent against unreasonable…