Dollree Mapp V. Ohio Case

On September 4, 1958, Dollree Mapp’s was convicted in the Cuyahoga County Ohio Court of Common Pleas (Mapp v. Ohio - 367 U.S. 643 (1961)). On March 29, 1961, Dollree Mapp v. Ohio was brought before the Supreme Court of the United States after an incident with local Ohio law enforcement and a search of Dollree Mapp 's home (Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643 (1961)). In the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment protects and prohibits all persons from unreasonable searches and seizures. However, can evidence obtained through a search that was in violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment rights still be admitted in a state criminal proceeding? This is the issue that will be thoroughly examined in the landmark case of Dollree Mapp v. the State of Ohio (henceforth

Ohio began on May 23, 1957, in Cleveland, Ohio after three law enforcement officers arrived at Mapp’s home. These law enforcement officers believed that Mapp’s was hiding a suspected bomber in her home, and large amounts of policy paraphernalia. The law enforcement officers demanded that she let them into her home in order to pursue the bombing suspect. Mapp’s refused their entry because they did not have a valid search warrant. Later that day, law enforcement officers returned to Mapp’s home, but with the ill intent of taking matters into their own hands. They presented Mapp’s with a fabricated search warrant, which they refused to let her keep for her attorney. They continued to bombard their way into Mapp’s home in pursuit of the bombing suspect. The law enforcement officers did not find the bombing suspect, but did find a trunk full of obscene photos in Mapp’s basement (Mapp v. Ohio (1961)). Mapp’s was arrested, charged, and convicted by the Cuyahoga County Ohio Court of possessing lewd, lascivious, or obscene books, pictures, and photographs even though the search and seizure were unlawful. Mapp’s initially appealed her conviction based on violations of her First Amendment rights of freedom of expression because it was her right to have those obscene photos in her possession. 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.

United States, the Court concluded that in order to protect the citizen’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, illegally seized evidence must be excluded in federal trials” (Gardner & Anderson, 2016, p. 215). The key phrase in this statement is “federal trials” because this indicates that the state courts did not have to adopt the exclusionary rule, and could still admit illegally seized evidence in their state-level court systems if they so pleased it. Unfortunately for Mapp’s, the state of Ohio did not adopt the exclusionary rule until later, which leads to me her arguments. Mapp’s argued that any evidence that is obtained illegally should be inadmissible in court. She further argued that the exclusionary rule or the Fourth Amendment rights should apply to all criminal prosecutions, including state