Mapp v. Ohio: Controversy of the Fourth Amendment Ms. Dollree Mapp and her daughter lived in Cleveland, Ohio. After receiving information that an individual wanted in connection with a recent bombing was hiding in Mapp's house, the Cleveland police knocked on her door and demanded entrance. Mapp called her attorney and subsequently refused to let the police in when they failed to produce a search warrant. After several hours of surveillance and the arrival of more officers, the police again sought entrance to the house. Although Mapp did not allow them to enter, they gained access by forcibly opening at least one door. Once the police were inside the house, Mapp confronted them and demanded to see their warrant. One of the officers held up a piece of paper claiming it was a search warrant. Mapp grabbed the paper but an officer recovered it and handcuffed Mapp ?because she had been belligerent.? Dragging Mapp upstairs, officers proceeded to search not only her room, but also her daughter?s bedroom, the kitchen, dinette, living room, and basement. In the course of the basement search, police found a trunk containing ?lewd and lascivious? books and pictures. As a result, Mapp was arrested for violating an Ohio law prohibiting the possession of obscene materials. The Cuyahoga County Common Please Court found her guilty of the violation based on the evidence presented by the police. When Mapp?s attorney questioned the officers about the alleged warrant and asked for it to be produced, the police were unable or unwilling to do so. Nonetheless, Mapp was found guilty and sentenced to 1 to 7 years in the Ohio Women?s Reformatory. Upon her conviction, Mapp appealed the case to the Court of Appeals, Eighth Judicial Circuit, but the cour... ... middle of paper ... ...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. 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 conceptual foundation of the U.S. Constitution is that there is a checks and balance system within the government that was developed to ultimately protect the rights of the people. In Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati (1986), there is an ongoing string of rulings from multiple appeals, for multiple rulings, that derived from a single case. What is interesting to note is that the original charge in the case is not the same charge for the most recent ruling. The actual case that is being heard in the Supreme Court is for civil damages. Although the law is being followed in allowing for the checks and balances to take place, the history of this case took place over a period of nine years from 1977-1986. One could question the efficiency of public administration in delivering a timely decision. As each case reached a ruling, another appeal needed to be submitted for the new justification of the ruling. Many different actions were submitted for review based on the different findings for each new ruling. A mentioned previously, this process was completed over a nine year period, and in accordance
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
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.
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.
Ford v. Wainwright is historically important for the reason that it shows the concept the insane can really be executed, also that although there are rules and regulations they can be broken by people without any sort of power or people with more power than others. Although things are set for everyone to follow some people break those to break other people down. The amendments ar...
Ohio is a united state that the Supreme Court that there decision concerning evidence to obtained as a part of unlawful arrest. So the story is kind of different from just two guys just standing around and looking at the window more than 24 times. But it had the samething like the police officer taking steps to assure himself that the person has a concealed weapon that can harm self and so he unexpectedly and fatally have been used against the him. Sure it will be like the terry vs. Ohio case and so that lead to an unreasonable search and that can risk the
The District of Columbia v. Heller plays an important role in shaping our right to keep and bear arms for self-defense by being the first court case that defines who can own guns for self-defend. The whole case is revolving around the Second Amendment and its meaning. Since the Second Amendment first enact into law in 1791, this prompts the court to look at it again. By understanding its original meaning, the court then can understand what intended to do and how it affects our current time. Before the Heller court case, States in America have its own laws on who can own and use guns. While some State is lax in their law...
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.
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte is a decidedly pro-order case because it qualifies another excuse police can raise to search a citizen. It asserts that an individual can verbally waive their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures so long as this waiver is not coerced by a government official. The Court goes on to decide that it is not required for suspects to demonstrate knowledge of these rights before waiving them. The blow to liberty interest is put most elegantly in Justice Marshall's dissent when he writes, "I have difficulty in comprehending how a decision made without knowledge of available alternatives can be treated as a choice at all." This precedent that a citizen may make a decision to waive their rights without knowing of the alternative, in this case maintaining the Fourth Amendment's protections, is perfectly legitimate is dangerous for liberty interests in a world where order-seeking policemen seek to take advantage of uninformed citizens. It is a terrible matter of policy. The logic in reaching this conclusion is no better. It is an argument fraught with weak reasoning and dangerous interpretations of the Constitution.
Riley v. California (2014) was a landmark United States Supreme Court case where the Court upheld unanimously that it is unconstitutional to search or seize a cell phone during an arrest without a warrant. This brought into question the Fourth Amendment, and what all rights are protected. The main case that was looked at as setting a precedent for this type of arrest was Chimel v. California (1969).
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 used 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 in this case meant that all states needed to comply with the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Overall, the ruling in this case was a perfect interpretation of the Constitution. Despite opposition claiming that it is not addressed in the Constitution, too few rights are ever addressed in the Constitution of the United States. That is why there is a thing called Judicial Review. By utilizing judicial review, the interpreters of the law –Supreme Court, may make changes to policies and laws. Abortion, medicinal marijuana, and marriage fall under the umbrella of Equal Protection since they correspond to the rights and liberties of US citizens.
Constitutionally, the case at first appears to be a rather one-sided violation of the First Amendment as incorporated through the Fourteenth. The court, however, was of a different opinion: "...
Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). Dollree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an admittedly illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. From the article “Mapp vs. Ohio” it states that when Mapp demanded to see their search warrant the police quickly flashed a piece of paper which they wouldn't show Mapp during court. Mapp had been convicted on the basis of illegally obtained evidence and was brought to jail by the Ohio Supreme Court. When she later brought it to the U.S. Supreme Court the court announced that evidence obtained through a search that violates the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in state
The decision is particularly important because it reversed a district court decision that had held reasonable suspicion was required for border searches of laptop computers (United States v. Arnold, (9th Cir. 2008)). In United States v. Cotterman (9th Cir. 2013) held that border agents needed to have reasonable suspicion before they could conduct a “forensic” search of the defendant’s laptop. “This is the first time a court has placed a limit on the government's ability to search an electronic device at the border”