Created by
Students also viewed
Mapp v. Ohio
7 terms
Insurers:
12 terms
Talmud Review 1:
18 terms
Legal 1100 Exam 1
72 terms
MGT 641 Exam 3
62 terms
Week #3
10 terms
BLAW terms ch1,2&9
81 terms
con law case rules
6 terms
Terms in this set (6)
4th amendment
No searches or seizures without a proper warrent
Background info
May 23, 1957, Three Cleveland police officers went to Miss Dollree Mapp's house to search for someone who was involved in a recent bombing, that was supposedly staying at her home. 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 photos. So she was arrested for having possession of the pictures, and inappropriate behavior towards the officers.
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.
-Exclusionary rule: a law that prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in a criminal trial.
Arguments for Ohio
The 14th Amendment does not guarantee 4th Amendment protections in the State courts. Also, under the 10th Amendment, the States keep their right to operate a separate court system. The Bill of Rights only restricts and limits the actions of the National Government.
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.