Mapp v Ohio Flashcards | Quizlet
Upgrade to remove ads
Only $35.99/year

Mapp v Ohio

Terms in this set (5)

4th amendment
No searches or seizures without a proper warrent
Background info
Cleveland police officers went to Dollree Mapp's house under the assumption that she was harboring a suspected bomber. She refused to let them enter without a proper warrant. But the police forcefully entered anyways and didn't find the fugitive. They searched her basement and found a trunk of full of obscene materials. So she was arrested for having possession of the objects.
Argument for Mapp
Police had no warrant and therefore acted improperly by searching her home anyway. If the 4th amendment didn't apply to the local and state police forces then they could go and search whenever and wherever they wanted. The exclusionary rule that is applied to federal courts should be applied to state courts.
-Exclusionary rule: a law that prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in a criminal trial.
Decision
In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Mapp. The majority opinion applied the exclusionary rule to the states. That rule requires courts to exclude, from criminal trials, evidence that was obtained in violation of the constitution's ban on unreasonable searches and arrests(4th amendment). Mapp had been convicted on the basis of illegally obtained evidence.
What does this mean for the future?
Mapp V. Ohio impacted the type of evidence allowed in courts. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that evidence acquired through illegal search and seizure was not admissible evidence, and therefore officially applied the exclusionary rule to the states.
Students also viewed