Mapp v. Ohio Supreme Court Case in 1961 is historically significant as it was a turning point that changed our legal system by extending the exclusionary rule that existed at the federal level to include state courts. The exclusionary rule prevents the use of evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure, without a warrant, to be use against the defendant in court. Before this case, each state decided whether to adopt the exclusionary rule. At the time of this case, twenty-four states were not using the exclusionary rule. The decision of this case meant that all stated needed to comply with the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Mapp v. Ohio is an important case as The court said evidence seized unlawfully, without a search warrant, could not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts). In this case, the decision of the United States Supreme Court extended the exclusionary rule to state criminal trials. The decision in Mapp also ushered in the Warren Court’s “criminal due process revolution.” Under the leadership of Chief Justice Warren, the Court began using the process of “selective incorporation,” to apply constitutional guarantees in the Bill of Rights to the states. Chief Justice Warren assigned Justice Tom C. Clark to write the majority opinion for Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). Immediately following the Judicial Conference, Justices Clark, Black, and Brennan held an impromptu "rump caucus" in an elevator (Mapp v Ohio - 367). The majority opinion, written by Justice Clark, states that all evidence obtained in an illegal search cannot be used as evidence in a state criminal trial. Justice Clark notes that the search that was done was clearly unconstitutional and the petitioner’s rights had been violated. Clark also noted that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that the individual will be protected from the state in cases like this, as it is the Fourteenth Amendment that extends Constitutional protections that the individual enjoys to from the federal level to the state
In this case, the Supreme Court decision in reversing the decision of the trail court. Although the suspects were conducting an illegal crime, the officers were reckless in the procedures in collecting the evidence. In this case, if there was a report or call concerning the drug activities in the apartment, being that the Police Department was conducting a the drug sting, it would have justified the reasoning behind the officers kicking the door in and securing suspects and evidence.
In the controversial court case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall’s verdict gave Congress the implied powers to carry out any laws they deemed to be “necessary and proper” to the state of the Union. In this 1819 court case, the state of Maryland tried to sue James McCulloch, a cashier at the Second Bank of the United States, for opening a branch in Baltimore. McCulloch refused to pay the tax and therefore the issue was brought before the courts; the decision would therefore change the way Americans viewed the Constitution to this day.
The Supreme Court ruled that due to the coercive nature of the custodial interrogation by police, no confession could be admissible under the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination Clause and Sixth Amendment right to an attorney unless a suspect has been made aware to his rights and the suspect had then waived them
This case is about Scott Randolph, who’s home was searched without a warrant. Due to this “corrupted” search, police ended up finding cocaine in his home. As a matter of fact both Randolph and his wife Janet Randolph were present during the search, it’s stated that Randolph’s wife gave permission to search the house. However Randolph denied to give that consistent, but police believed that the wife’s permission was all they needed. After the encounter with the drugs, Randolph was arrested for drug possession. This case was taken to trail and both the appellate court and Georgie Supreme court believed that the search of Randolph's home was unconstitutional.
Adair v. U.S. and Coppage v. Kansas became two defining cases in the Lochner era, a period defined after the Supreme Court’s decision in Lochner v New York, where the court adopted a broad understanding of the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. In these cases the court used the substantive due process principle to determine whether a state statute or state’s policing power violated an individual’s freedom of contract. To gain a better understanding of the court’s reasoning it is essential to understand what they disregarded and how the rulings relate to the rulings in Plessy v. Ferguson, Lochner v. New York and Muller v. Oregon.
Ohio. However, it was an obvious decision since evidence obtained through a search that was in violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment rights was already inadmissible in federal criminal proceedings, so it only makes sense to make federal and state criminal proceedings equal when it comes to protecting our Fourteenth Amendment Right to a due process proceeding. Mapp v. Ohio is so significant because it was one of the first of several landmark cases that demanded a re-evaluation of the role of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments as it applied to state court
McCulloch v Maryland 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316 (1819) Issue May Congress charter a bank even though it is not an expressly granted power? Holding Yes, Congress may charter a bank as an implied power under the “necessary and proper” clause. Rationale The Constitution was created to correct the weaknesses of the Articles. The word “expressly” particularly caused major problems and therefore was omitted from the Constitution, because if everything in the Constitution had to be expressly stated it would weaken the power of the Federal government.
I believe this United States Supreme Court case is particularly important because it ultimately defends a person?s Constitutional right to privacy. As stated before, until this decision was made, the search and seizure laws were given little consideration. Although there is always an exception to the rule, for the most part, evidence that is obtained in a way that violates a person?s Constitutional right is inadmissible in Court. This decision has most definitely refined the laws of the admissibility of evidence and the procedures followed by those in law enforcement.
The Supreme Court had to decide on the question of, does random drug testing of high school athletes violate the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment? According to the Fourth Amendment, "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.
From a trial strategy point of view, you always start with the piece(s) of evidence you believe are most damaging to the client's case and work backwards looking for an exploitable flaw in the search and seizure procedure that would make that or those item(s) inadmissible. The further back in the series of events you can argue a fatal flaw, the more likely that the evidence and any additional materials which flowed from that particular item of evidence will be excluded. This is the practical analysis of all the times we see or hear of law enforcement arguing that there was some technical item which drew their attention and suspicion and justifies their hunch that criminal activity is afoot.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states that people have the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” but the issue at hand here is whether this also applies to the searches of open fields and of objects in plain view and whether the fourth amendment provides protection over these as well. In order to reaffirm the courts’ decision on this matter I will be relating their decisions in the cases of Oliver v. United States (1984), and California v. Greenwood (1988) which deal directly with the question of whether a person can have reasonable expectations of privacy as provided for in the fourth amendment with regards to objects in an open field or in plain view.
When the law enforcement searched Wurie’s phone, they did not have a warrant to have the illegal evidence from his cell phone, moreover, it required the court to reconsider Wurie’s sentence. Furthermore, the case of the United States v. Olmstead, Olmstead was suspected as a bootlegger, therefore, got the federal agents to install wiretaps in the basement of his building, convicting him of being a bootlegger with the illegal evidence that got from the wiretaps. Most people argued that the federal agents violated Olmstead’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment, but the court agreed that it did not violate those amendments and that the Fourth Amendment did not require a warrant for wiretapping, if listening devices were outside of the home. Also, in the case of Mapp v. Ohio, law officials convicted Mapp of possessing obscene materials after an illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. However, during they're illegal search they didn’t find evidence of being a suspect to a crime, they still arrested for obscene materials they found during the search. Since the law officials search was illegal, the Supreme Court agreed that the evidence of the obscene materials be concealed in court by providing a limited
Three police officers were looking for a bombing suspect at Miss Mapp’s residence they asked her if they could search her house she refused to allow them. Miss Mapp said that they would need a search to enter her house so they left to go retrieve one. The three police officers returned three hours later with a paper that they said was a search warrant and forced their way into her house. During the search they found obscene materials that they could use to arrest her for having in her home. The items were found in the basement during an illegal search and seizure conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and therefore should not admissible in court.
Hicks is like the search of Justin Meyers home conducted by police in the fictional case in the text book. In both searches police were in the defendant’s homes and were searching for specific items, and during that search items were found that implicated the defendants in other crimes. There are several differences between the two cases. First, the severity of the crimes. Hicks’s case involved the theft of stereo equipment, while Myers case involved murder. Second, the search of Hicks home did not include a search warrant, and in Meyers case the police did have a search warrant. In Myers case, police had a lawful search warrant to search for drugs and drug paraphernalia. During that search police located a bloody rag, which was sent for testing. The results of this test revealed the blood belonged to a murder victim, implicating Myers for suspicion of murder. Although the police did have a search warrant, the warrant only listed drugs, and paraphernalia. This arises several questions. First where was the bloody rag found? Second, did the police have probable cause that Meyers was under suspicion of murder? Or was it simply a case of reasonable suspicion? In my opinion the results of the tests performed on the bloody rag found in Meyers case should not be admissible since Myers was not under suspicion of murder, and the bloody rag was not included in the lawful search warrant. The search is not considered legal, and not covered under the plain site doctrine. Myer’s fourth amendment protection against illegal search and seizure was violated by testing the bloody
Terry v. Ohio was in 1968 it had a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the fourth amendment prohibition on the unreasonable search and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the streets and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer had a reasonable suspicion of that person had commit a crime in which he can be belief that the person may have a weapons that can be dangerous to a police officer.