Mapp v. Ohio

BACKGROUND ON MAPP V. OHIO CASE
Dollree map lived in Cleveland, Ohio and there was and individual wanted for a bombing, and it was thought that the person was hiding in the Mapp’s house. Police came by her house and demanded that they enter and search her property, but Dollree refused and contacted her attorney. The attorney said that they shouldn’t be allowed in without a search warrant. After consistent urging they police officers were able to gain access inside the house. Dollree continuously told them to leave until they got a search warrant, so one of the officers held up a false warrant. Mapp doubted the paper, so she grabbed it, but another officer recovered it. As a result she was hand cuffed for being belligerent. The officers proceeded to drag Dollree upstairs, and continued on searching the rest of the house.
CONSTITUTIONAL SIGNIFICANCE OF MAPP V. OHIO CASE
The Fourth Amendment protects Americans “against unreasonable searches and seizures.” This amendment states that if any police officer has thought that someone has committed a crime, they have to ask a judge to issue a search warrant. A search warrant is a court order allowing law enforcement officers to search a suspect's home or business and take the evidence needed. Judges must be convinced that a search will probably turn up evidence of criminal activity, in order to issue a search warrant.
IMPORTANT TERMS/ CONCEPTS RELATED TO MAPP V. OHIO CASE
During the search in Dollree Mapp’s house, police found some pornographic materials in her basement, which was in violation of Ohio law. Her conviction was obtained on the using the evidence taken by the police when they entered her house without a search warrant while looking for a suspect. The Supreme Court, in overturning her conviction, declared that the rule based on the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. This prohibits the use of evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure in the federal court, and also includes state courts. The ruling provoked a good deal of controversy; while the components of the Fourth Amendment rule claim that it is the only means of assuring freedom from illegal searches. Others argue that a criminal should not go free because of a police officer's violation of the Constitution.
external image cpr0015.gif
external image Mapp.jpg