On May 23rd 1957, three police officers representing Cleveland Ohio came to the door of Miss Mapp’s residence with the suspicion of a bombing suspect hiding out in her home. Miss Mapp and her daughter lived in a two family two story home. Upon their arrival at the house the police knocked on the door and demanded entrance from Miss Mapp. However Miss Mapp didn’t open the door and instead asked them to provide a search warrant after she called her attorney. The officers advised their headquarters of the situation and established surveillance of the home over the next few hours. The officers once again sought entrance three hours later when they forced open one of the doors to the home and went inside. It was around this time that miss mapp’s attorney arrived and witnessed the police officers enter the home. In their continued defiance of the law they did not allow Miss Mapp to see her attorney. At one point when the officers entered the hall Miss Mapp stopped them and demanded to see their search warrant. One officer held up a slip of paper claiming it to be a search warrant and Miss Mapp immediately grabbed it and stuck it in her bra. The officers wrestled Mapp to the ground and made her relinquish the paper through a struggle. The police then handcuffed her because she was being “belligerent”. The officers then escorted her upstairs and began searching through her drawers and belongings, even though they were looking for a bombing suspect. The police also looked at her photo albums and some of her personal papers. The search spread throughout the house. It’s possible that during this time they found who they believed was the bomber Virgil Ogletree inside the home. He said that he was there delivering laundry as he owned a dry cle...
... middle of paper ...
...believed that the exclusionary rule protected their privacy and a defeat to others who believed that safety came before individual privacy.
Works Cited
1. Harlan, John. Justice Harlan. Supreme court of Ohio. Harlan’s opinion of dissent. Print. .
2. "Mapp vs. Ohio key people." the Cleveland memory project. .
3. Thomson, Reuters. "The Fourth Amendment and the "Exclusionary Rule"." FindLaw. .
4. "Mapp V. Ohio." Wikipedia the free encyclopedia. .
5. "Mapp V. Ohio." STREET LAW INC and THE SUPREME COURT HISTORICAL SOCIETY. .
This case was categorized under the criminal law, as the defendant had to go against the Crown. As for the actual case, the incident first came to attention when a 911 call was made from Godoy’s apartment, which was suddenly cut short before the caller was able to be identified. Despite this, a total of four officers headed to the apartment to confirm any suspicions and to question the resident of the apartment, which was found to be Godoy. As the officers arrived and requested access to Godoy’s apartment, a feminine cry was heard inside. It was this time that Godoy was attempting to close the door on the officers to avoid investigation, but as the officers’ suspicious grew stronger, they forced themselves into the apartment, despite Godoy’s
Debated as one of the most misrepresented cases in American legal history, Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald still fights for innocence. Contrary to infallible evidence, prosecution intentionally withheld crucial information aiding MacDonald’s alibi. Such ratification included proof of an outside attack that would have played a major role in Jeffrey’s case.
Sue Grafton once stated: “Except for cases that clearly involve a homicidal maniac, the police like to believe murders are committed by those we know and love, and most of the time they're right.” This is clearly the thought the Boulder Colorado police conceived in the case of little beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey. As many have observed from the onslaught of media coverage, the day after Christmas 1996, six year old Jon Benet Ramsey was found buried under a white blanket, bound, beaten, and strangled to death in the wine cellar of their Boulder home. With such a strikingly rare and glamorous story of a six year old beauty queen dead, who was a part of a “perfect American upper-middle class family”, combined with a lack of a lead and ever mounting suspicion piling up against the parents it was no surprise to find that it was fuel to the media and soon stories sold and became a matter of competition between the press. So, like wildfire, this heart-breaking story spread, stretching across the nation, shattering the souls of the world. News broadcasts, magazine and newspaper articles, and television specials all shaped and molded peoples perceptions of this beautiful child’s murder, especially her parents, John and Pasty Ramsey’s involvement or lack there of. The police and FBI’s merciless quest to connect Jon Benet’s murder to her parents, seemed to cause the them to overlook important evidence, or at the very least dismiss suspicious findings that would otherwise send red flags to investigators. There are many contributors as to why this case remains unsolved including lack of investigative expertise, failure to protect valuable evidence, and focusing too much on the parents as suspects but, ultimately, the over involvement of...
and did not impinge upon the rights of others. In these circumstances, their conduct was
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
On Thanksgiving evening, November 27, 1992, Sergeant Kenneth Mathison and his wife Yvonne drive their 1988 tan Ford van along Route 131 in Hilo, Hawaii. The rain is pouring down and before he knows it, Kenneth Mathison is awaiting police assistance as he cradles his wife’s dead body in the back of their van. Mathison, a sergeant of 25 years with the Hilo Police Department was allegedly informing his wife, a maternity nursing professional at the Hilo Medical Center, that he was being investigated in his second paternity suit. According to Mathison, when Yvonne heard the news, she jumped from the passenger side of the van. While he was looking for her in the blinding rain, Mathison purportedly ran over his wife. He then carried the body into the van and secured it with yellow rope in the back before attempting to find help. Will the forensic evidence support Mathison’s account of that fateful evening?
Many Supreme Court cases in the United States have reassured its citizens’ rights. One of those cases was that of the 1965 Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case. This case was about five students who were suspended from school for wearing black armbands. Should the students have been suspended? The Tinker v. Des Moines case was a very controversial Supreme Court case in which the right to freedom of speech and expression for students in public schools was violated.
On June 7th 1965, married couples in the State of Connecticut received the right to acquire and benefit from contraceptive devises. In a majority decision by the United States Supreme Court, seven out of the nine judges believed that sections 53-32 and 54-196 of the General Statues of Connecticut , violated the right of privacy guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The case set precedence by establishing marital (and later constitutional) privacy, and had notable influence on three later controversial ruling=s in Roe v. Wade (1973), Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) and Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992) . The issue at hand was, and is still, one that still causes debate, wether a state has the authority to restrict the use and sale of contraceptives. Though it is not contraceptives, anymore, that is at the heart of the abortion debate, this ruling was the first step to the expectation of constitutional privacy.
The relationship between law enforcement and prosecutors, which goes hand-in-hand, can’t be overlooked. Evidence of a crime that detectives and law enforcement discover is as equally important as a good trial on part of the prosecution. If detectives aren’t able to find good solid evidence – that case usually isn’t bothered in being pursued. Several years ago, in the late 80’s, there was a murder case in Southeastern Oklahoma which now serves as a tragic example to the need for honest, constitutional work in the criminal justice system. Disreputable investigative procedures, fraudulent sources, and bad evidence were the foundation of this case that shattered innocent lives.
... show some sensible desire of security for disposed of impacts that social order might discover impartially sensible, than the Fourth Amendment cannot and won't secure the protection of the single person concerning protests in plain view.
To support their conclusion the board tells the story of two men who were exonerated after spending thirty years in prison for a crime they did not commit. Days after the rape and murder of eleven year old Sabrina Buie, half-brothers Henry Lee McCollum and Leon Brown confessed to the crime. Not only were their confessions made under pressure without parents or an attorney present, but the prosecution failed to present multiple pieces of evidence to the defense lawyers, DNA evidence that proved McCollum and Brown were not responsible for the murder. In fact, the DNA belonged to a Roscoe Artis, who was a suspect all along and was convicted of a similar crime just weeks later.
The evidence discovered during the investigation suggested to the police that OJ Simpson may have had something to do with this murder and they obtained an arrest warrant. The investigators believed that they “knew” OJ Simpson committed the murders. His lawyers and him were informed of the arrest warrant and agreed to a specified time when OJ would turn himself into authorities. Investigators are later admonished, by the defense, on how they handled the crime scene.
Our nation seems as if it is in a constant battle between freedom and safety. Freedom and security are two integral parts that keep our nation running smoothly, yet they are often seen conflicting with one another. “Tragedies such as Pearl Harbor, 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombings may invoke feelings of patriotism and a call for unity, but the nation also becomes divided, and vulnerable populations become targets,” (Wootton 1). “After each attack a different group or population would become targets. “The attack on Pearl Harbor notoriously lead to Japanese Americans being imprisoned in internment camps, the attacks on 9/11 sparked hate crimes against those who appeared to be Muslim or Middle Eastern,” (Wootton 1). Often times people wind up taking sides, whether it be for personal freedoms or for national security, and as a nation trying to recover from these disasters we should be leaning on each other for support. Due to these past events the government has launched a series of antiterrorist measures – from ethnic profiling to going through your personal e-mail (Begley 1). Although there are times when personal freedoms are sacrificed for the safety of others, under certain circumstances the government could be doing more harm than good.
worked in the court that the police would be searching the home. Daniel BenDavid also claimed to have had a similar conversation with Grasing, which he reported to Lieutenant Timothy Williams of Oak Bluffs Police Department. BenDavid provided a written statement in an affidavit dated November 21, 2011, . [Attachment #1]. Due to the serious implications of these accusations, Dolby created a timeline and reported the matter to Chief Anthony Bettencourt. [Attachment #2] As a result, on October 26, 2011, Captain Christopher Mason with the Massachusetts State Police CPAC unit in the Cape and Island District Attorney’s Office was assigned to investigate the allegations made against Laura Marshard. Over the course of several days Mason interviewed Dolby, Willoughby, Gabe Grasing, Mary Grasing, and Laura Marshard; Allyson Syslo was interviewed by Sergeant Jeff Stone also of the Massachusetts State Police CPAC unit.
...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).