The complainant in the Mapp v. Ohio case, DollreeMapp, was detained following a law enforcement search of her house to find an outlaw she was supposedly giving refuge to. After a number of entry refusals by the complainant, Cleveland’s Police Department apparently forged a warrant to inspect her home and forced their way into it. While they couldn’t find any outlaw hidden there, they did stumble upon lascivious and lewd material (books, to be precise) in the house (Mapp V Ohio - Cases | Laws.com). This discovery led to Mapp’s detention, though she wasn’t charged. Nevertheless, the complainant claimed the police had no basis to detain her and had also breached her rights guaranteed by Amendment IV. The Mapp v. Ohio case, Mapp’s appeal for her previous detention by Cleveland’s Police Department, is counted among the most popular twentieth-century Supreme Court-handled cases. Amendment IV forbids unauthorized searches and seizures in American citizens’ homes, in addition to delineating citizens’ privacy rights.The chief issue in this case dealt with whether or not proof gathered in the course of a search operation that breached the constitutional Amendment IV could be admitted in state courts. Attorney Kearns lodged an appeal notice and forwarded the case to Ohio’s Supreme Court, to reconsider the ruling made by the Court of Appeals (Mapp v. Ohio - Supreme Court of Ohio (Case No. 36,091)). Amendments...
Justice Taft was the author of the majority view (Mapp v. Ohio - Supreme Court of Ohio (Case No. 36,091)). He claimed the lower courts’ claim that the complainant controlled the lewd material was right. Additionally, as evidenced by State v. Lindway, 131 Ohio St., 166 and Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S., 25, the absence of a proper warrant had no bearing on the case’s outcome, as Ohio State authorized its courts to admit evidence procured without authorization in their criminal trials. Lastly, the Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 case wasn’t applicable as the law enforcement officials’ behavior wasn’t outrageous. Thus, clearly, the complainant’s rights of due process as guaranteed by the constitutional Amendment XIV weren’t breached.
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
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 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
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
Criminal Defense Homicide Case Fourth Amendment Searches and Seizures in Contemporary America The conviction of a client charged with murder is threatened by evidence the prosecution holds. There are indications that this evidence was obtained unconstitutionally. Presumably, the exclusionary rule would be the primary vehicle for moving to have this evidence excluded. If the search and seizure was conducted without a warrant and not incident to an arrest, vehicle stop, or hot
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"
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now