Mapp v. Ohio Over the Centuries, There

Mapp V. Ohio Over the centuries, there has been considerable debate as to the application of the Bill of Rights when it comes to the states. This is because a series of court cases decided it was only relevant when it came to the federal government (i.e. Barron v. Baltimore and United States v. Cruickshank). However, with the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, these states were obligated to follow them.

This has shifted the debate as to if this aspect of the Constitution is relevant to state and local officials. To determine if this is correct requires examining a fictional case in contrast with Mapp V. Ohio. This will be accomplished by carefully studying the facts of the case, the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine (under Mapp V. Ohio), the application of the rule of law and discussing how this would affect the ruling from the fictitious scenario.

Together, the elements will highlight the way the Bill of Rights is applicable. ("Barron V. Baltimore," 2007) ("U.S.V. Cruickshank," 2010) State the facts that are relevant and not relevant in the fact pattern In the fictional case, Detective Mark Quick Draw is using a confidential informant to provide him with information about Sally Martin. Her address is known for being a drug house and it is believed that this kind of activity is occurring at the location. To confirm this Quick Draw sends in his confidential informant.

He returns 20 minutes later with some cocaine. They subsequently tell the police that there is a rectangular looking package sitting in an open garbage bag and number of scales. The combination of these factors gave them probable cause to believe that a major narcotics ring is operating out of the location. They subsequently went to Judge Justice to obtain a search warrant. However, he is in the middle of a legal proceeding and the warrant will be delayed by an hour.

Outside of the location, Detective Quick Draw continues to see people coming and going. After watching this several times, he immediately calls for uniform backup and raids the location. During the search they do not uncover evidence of a major drug operation. As the package is nothing more than trash and there are no scales anywhere. Instead, the police discover a large bag of heroin in her night stand. Sally is a convicted felon, who is not allowed to have these kinds of substance.

She is subsequently charged and her attorney has filed a motion to suppress the evidence. What are the rules of law stated in Mapp v. Ohio? Be sure to address the exclusionary rule and the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine In Mapp V. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that any kind of search must be in accordance with Fourth Amendment for the states and local jurisdictions. This is because the Fourteenth Amendment states that everyone is entitled to due process of law.

As a result, the entire Bill of Rights is applicable to them (in order to be in compliance with these provisions). If any kind violation of the Fourth Amendment occurs (such as: an illegal search and seizure), the court has the ability to correct these oversights. ("The Fourth Amendment and the Exclusionary Rule," 2012) ("Mapp V. Ohio," 2010) The way that this takes place is through the exclusionary rule. Under these guidelines any kind of evidence that is collected without a proper search warrant is inadmissible in court.

This is enforced through the defendant submitting a pretrial motion to suppress evidence. If a judge determines that there is some kind of violation, they can throw out any evidence that was collected. ("The Fourth Amendment and the Exclusionary Rule," 2012) ("Mapp V. Ohio," 2010) Moreover, they have the ability to utilize the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine. This states that the court can suppress evidence which was obtained from the search and led to other information.

For example, if the police illegally obtained something that is incriminating to the defendant (via an illegal search) and they use this to coerce a confession. Both the evidence and the confession are inadmissible. This is because one is based off something that was obtained illegally to press for other information. As a result, the judge has the ability to sequester and fix potential abuses using these tools. ("The Fourth Amendment and the Exclusionary Rule," 2012) ("Mapp V. Ohio," 2010) Apply the rules of law decided in Mapp v.

Ohio and relate them to relevant facts in the fact pattern The rules of law are clear using Mapp V. Ohio. This means that the search against Sally is illegal. The reason why is because no search warrant was obtained. As a result, the heroine should be suppressed and any other information that was obtained from the search (such as confessions). This is applying the exclusionary rule and the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine to address any kind of abuses or oversights at the hands of police. ("Mapp V.

Ohio," 2010) In a conclusion, detail how the court decided the case in Mapp v. Ohio. State how you would rule if you were the judge reviewing.