Mapp vs. Ohio: Illegal Search and Seizure
The case of Mapp vs. Ohio is one of the most important Supreme Court decisions of the last century. Until this decision, the rights against illegal search and
seizure had no method to be enforced. Up until this time, previous cases at set precedents provided little or no protection from illegal searches and seizures for the
accused facing state prosecution. On May 23, 1957, Miss Dollree Mapp heard a knocking at her door (170 Ohio Street). When she asked who it was, three men
identified themselves as Cleveland police officers.
The officers stated that they believed a fugitive was hiding in her home. Miss Mapp told the officers that there was no one else in her home. They
asked her for entrance. Miss Mapp phoned her attorney, and was instructed not to let the police into her home. The police grudgingly left, and set up surveillance
around the home. Around three hours later, the police officers returned to Miss Mapp's residence, and was met by four additional officers as well. The officers gave
Miss Mapp little time to respond to their presence, and almost immediately forced entry through several of the entrances to Miss Mapp’s home. Miss Mapp's
attorney arrived on the scene to provide council, but was met by the police instead. The police held him outside, preventing him from meeting with his client. When
Miss Mapp was confronted by the officers, she demanded to see the search warrant. An officer held up a piece of paper, which is believed to be a fake warrant.
Miss Mapp grabbed the paper, and put it down her blouse. The police then forcibly tried to retrieve the "warrant" from Miss Mapp's blouse. They handcuffed her
for being "belligerent". The police then proceeded to search every room in the entire house. In the basement, they found a trunk, which they opened. Inside they
found materials that they considered to be “obscene”. They retrieved all the materials, and charged her with the possession of obscene material (Ohio Rev. Code,
2905.34: "No person shall knowingly . . . have in his possession or under his control an obscene, lewd, or lascivious book, magazine, pamphlet, paper, writing,
advertisement, circular, print, picture . . . or drawing . . . of an indecent or immoral nature . . . . Whoever violates this section shall be fined not less than two hundred
nor more than two tho...
... middle of paper ...
...ow meant that citizens had
different rights depending on what state they lived in. This allowed another way for prosecutors to abuse the system. They could attempt to get cases to be heard in
states which did not have an exclusionary rule adopted. By applying the federal exclusionary rule to all the states, all citizens would be equally protected. While a
controversial decision at the time, the creation of the exclusionary rule is now one of the backbones of the accused rights in American society.
As a review, Mapp's rights were clearly violated by the Police department and by the State of Ohio. Had it not been for the Supreme Court to enforce her
constitutional rights, her conviction would have gone unjust. Theres many arguments between the prosecutors, police, and defense about the Mapps case. Views
such as "how is the police department supposed to stop crime if they cant search it out and find it with the disability the fourth amendment brings to them". How can
defense attourneys defend subjects/victims if they have no privacy due to the lack of support on the fourth amendment. The Mapps case is a perfect example of how
the Supreme Court impacts our society.
...that was the first thing that caught my interest, later when reading the case and discovering that two lower cases had both ruled against the plaintiff, that is when I decided to go further in the case. I wanted to know why it was that the lower courts had ruled against her anf not for her. The decision the court made was fair, I agree with the court. It was the fairest ruling the court could have made towards Suders considering that in reality she had lost the lower court ruling because of the fact she didn't really have sufficient evidence that indeed her supervisors had been harassing her. Therefore, I think the outcome of this particular case was fair and I would have to agree with the decision the United States Supreme Court made towards Suders.
Her appeal was later focused on the search and seizure violations of her Fourth Amendment right. Her appeal made it to the Supreme Court of the United States (Mapp v.
...level and not to the state level (once again undermining state government authority). For these reasons, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in this case was one of the most controversial decisions at that time. Up until this decision was made, police in many states had ignored the search and seizure law.
On May 23, 1957, Dollree Mapp submitted to a search of her home by law enforcement. Police happened to be in the area searching for a suspect in connection to a recent bombing that had occurred. After receiving information that Mapp was hiding the suspect, Cleveland law enforcement demanded entrance to her home. Mapp denied the police entrance, and eventually forced their way into her house. The individual was not found in the search, but police did find pornographic materials.
Darry is a hero is because he gave up his future for his brothers. A place where
Not only did the officers barge into her home without a warrant; they collected her personal items and arrested her for having sexual materials. Sadly, when Mapp stood in front
... was instrumental to recognition of the constitutional right to privacy and the interpretation of the Ninth Amendment. This case shows that the Constitution is a living document that can be maneuvered to accommodate for the adaption of American peoples. While it is a stationary and unchanging document, unique interpretations can be gleamed.
In this passage Macbeth has come to visit the witches and demand that they tell him his fate. The witches decide to tell him his fate in the form of apparitions. The first apparition (not included in this passage) is to beware Macduff. The second apparition is called the “bloody child” ( 97), while the third is named “a child crowned, with a tree in his hand” ( 97). The witches play into Macbeth's ego when informing him of his fate, making them appear simple at first glance. These prophecies give Macbeth the idea that he’s invincible, leading him to believe that he can manipulate and control his fate.
If we further implement the sterilization of dogs—pet, shelter, and stray—the overpopulation of the species will begin to noticeably drop, and as generations pass and more and more unfixed dogs die, the population will no longer be capable of rising quick enough to counteract the solution. Obviously, not all dog owners will fix their dogs. But this can be a good thing because as long as there are at least some unsterilized dogs, there will always be a population. If the majority of them are sterilized then this population will no longer be able to grow out of hand as it is
By overcoming the racism and rude comments it has made Michelle a more successful person. Here are some examples. Michelle attended Whitney M. Young Magnet High School, the city's first magnet high school for gifted children, were among other activities, she served as the student government treasurer. In 1981, Michelle graduated from the school as class salutatorian. Following in her older brother's footsteps, Michelle then attended Princeton University, graduating cum laude in 1985 with a B.A. in Sociology. She went on to study law at Harvard Law School, where she took part in demonstrations calling for the enrollment and hiring of more minority students and
...rohibits all unreasonable search and seizures and requires a warrant.”(para. 1). The officers in this case deprived the woman of due process. The lack of a warrant being present upon entering the woman’s home was a clear violation of her constitutional rights as a home owner. “In general, officers can arrest a person (1) for any crime committed in the officer’s presence, (2) for a felony not committed in the officer’s presence if they have probable cause to believe that the person they have arrested committed the felony or, (3) under the authority of a warrant.” (POLICE, 2011, p.183).
After arriving at Miss Mapp’s residence and failed to gain permission to enter the residence the three Cleveland police officers should have gone to the DA and retrieved a real search warrant. The fact that they tried to pass off a piece of paper as a search warrant is useless and everything that they find cannot be used against her in court. All of the paraphernalia regarding the bombing that they found is useless because of the pursuant search warrant. Because Miss Mapp did not answer the door when they came back they forced their way into the house and conducted an illegal search. When Miss Mapp’s attorney arrived the police officers would not let the attorney into the house. When Miss Mapp grabbed the purported search warrant the police officers struggled with her to retrieve it and did. Miss Mapp was then placed under arrest as the police conducted a widespread search of the residence wherein obscene materials were found in a trunk in the basement. Miss Mapp was convicted of possessing these material...
Style is something that comes from within. If there’s anything absolute about style it’s that it holds you accountable to yourself at every moment. People understand that what they put on in the morning is the first thing that people notice about them (Garcia 6). The clothing you wear affects how you feel about yourself throughout the whole day. In fact clothing is the most principal means for identifying oneself in a public space (Crane 9). Clothes are supposed to give us a sense of security in presenting ourselves to society. Our personal identities focus on our own beliefs, goals and value systems, and our fashion comes in all forms. This form of identity can be expressed when people wear whatever they like because it makes them feel good about themselves and makes them feel happy, confident, less self-conscious and free from social expectations and
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
Separate but equal, judicial review, and the Miranda Rights are decisions made by the Supreme Court that have impacted the United States in history altering ways. Another notable decision was made in the Tinker v. Des Moines Case. Ultimately the Supreme Court decided that the students in the case should have their rights protected and that the school acted unconstitutionally. Justice Fortas delivered a compelling majority opinion. In the case of Tinker v Des Moines, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion was strongly supported with great reasoning but had weaknesses that could present future problems.