...Carmen Cabresita 8/4/13 AJS/502 Mapp v. Ohio Mapp v. Ohio The Supreme Court case of Mapp v. Ohio was heard in 1961 and originated in the local courts of the State of Ohio. This case plays an important role currently in our court system because it focuses on the warrant, search and seizures, Exclusionary Rule, Due Process and the 4th Amendment. This has molded every aspect in which the police agencies and the government as to how they can retrieve any incriminating evidence from any potential offender in the United States thru our criminal justice system. Mapp v. Ohio (Plaintiff) is unique because this case challenged the Constitution and the Bill of Rights at the Supreme Court level. This case also challenged a police department because it was also able to show that at times the police officers are not meeting the criteria of which a warrant must be served on an individual. The police officers in this case had served a questionable warrant to Ms. Mapp that should have been for another individual within the same residence. The officers were attempting to incriminate MS. Mapp with evidence not pertaining to her in hopes of holding someone liable. The person in question that they were investigating no longer lived at that residence. As it turned out the warrant that was served was a bogus one, which the court, while it was conducting the trial, was unable to obtain. Evidence presented during trial was a gun and pornographic material. There were three police...
Words: 1138 - Pages: 5
...Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) was a very important case and turning point in our nation's history. It changed our legal system by extending the evidence exclusionary rule that was originally decided in Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914). It also marked the final incorporation of the fourth amendment into the due process clause of the fourteenth. The exclusionary rule was created in Weeks which prevented the federal government from using evidence that is found during an illegal search without a warrant. Years later in Wolf v Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949) the Supreme Court ruled that both state and local governments must obey the fourth amendment by getting a warrant before conducting a search. The court also said the exclusionary rule did not apply to the states allowing state prosecutors to use illegally seized evidence in trial. Mapp v. Ohio gave the Supreme Court the chance to overrule Wolf and apply the exclusionary rule to the states. Mapp v. Ohio was quite the interesting case. It started on May 23, 1957, when three Cleveland police officers arrived at Dolly Mapp's home regarding information suggesting that a person wanted for questioning in connection with a bombing was hiding in the house, and upon a large amount of paraphernalia in the home (Mapp v. Ohio). The officers demanded entrance but Ms. Mapp refused entrance to the home without a search warrant after telephoning her attorney (Mapp v. Ohio). They took surveillance of the house and arrived some...
Words: 1696 - Pages: 7
...Mapp v. Ohio Synopsis Who was involved? Dollree Mapp had numerous connections to the underground world of boxing and illegal gambling. She was married to and had previous relationships with boxers and promoters who were big in the Midwest at the time. Mapp was first brought to Law Enforcement’s attention by having a potential connection to a bombing suspect named Virgil Ogletree. The police had heard from an anonymous tip that Ogletree might be hiding out within Mapp’s home. The police soon showed up, knocked, and asked if they could search the house. Mapp being somewhat aware of her rights refused entry to the police. They returned in greater numbers, forcibly entered the home, conducted a search and found Ogletree who was eventually cleared of all charges. However, the police did come across what is noted as “obscene material” which Mapp claimed was found within a footlocker of a previous tenant. The material collected being betting slips, a pistol, and some pornography. Mapp was later cleared of the charges pertaining to the betting slips located in the house but was later asked to testify against members of the illegal betting operation. Mapp refused and was later charged with possession of “lewd and lascivious books, pictures, and photographs”. She was sentenced to 7 years and immediately filed an appeal. This is where the story of Mapp v. Ohio really begins. What was argued? Mapp’s appeal argued that her 4th, 5th, and 8th amendments rights were violated....
Words: 737 - Pages: 3
...Maitri Spence-Sharpe, ADMJ 2 Sec. 8001 Citation: Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) Facts: Three police officers went to Miss Dollree Mapp's home looking for a person wanted for questioning regarding a bombing. They had been informed that the person was hiding in Miss Mapp's house. She did not let them in because her attorney advised her not to unless the officers had a search warrant. The police remained outside doing surveillance until more officers arrived a few hours later. At that point they tried again to get Mapp to allow them access to the house. When she did not open the door, they entered by knocking down one or more doors. They searched the premises. Mapp wanted to see a search warrant. An officer showed her a piece of paper and said it was a warrant. Mapp took the document and placed in the front of her clothing. The officers forcefully got the paper back, handcuffed her for behaving contentiously, and forced her stay in her bedroom. The police searched all the rooms and found obscene photographs and written works, but not the person they wanted to question. It was not clear exactly where the pornographic materials were found in the house, but the bedrooms, kitchen, dinette, basement, and living room were all searched. In court, there was no search warrant presented, nor explanation for the lack of one provided....
Words: 546 - Pages: 3
...Weeks v. United States (1914) Fremont Weeks was arrested and charged with using the U.S. mail to conduct an illegal lottery. The police searched Week’s home and turned over articles and papers to a U.S. marshal. The marshal and the police also searched Week’s bedroom and confiscated other documents and letters. Week’s home was searched without a valid search warrant. Weeks was convicted of a federal offense based on the incriminating evidence seized from his home. On appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Week’s conviction was overturned. The Court held that evidence obtained by unreasonable search and seizure must be excluded in a federal criminal trial. The Court also held that the Fourth Amendment barred the use of evidence obtained through illegal search and seizure in a federal prosecution. With this ruling, the Court established the exclusionary rule. Mapp v. Ohio (1961) On May 23, 1957, three police officers went to the home of Dollree Mapp to search for a man, who was wanted in connection with a bombing at the home of Donald King. The police officers knocked on the door and demanded entry. Mapp telephoned her attorney, and the attorney advised Mapp to refuse the police from entering her home without a search warrant. Three hours later, the police arrived again and forced their way into Mapp’s home. As the police officers began to searched the home, Mapp demanded to see a search warrant. One of the officers held up a piece of paper purported to be a search...
Words: 669 - Pages: 3
...fashioned, any evidence was allowable in a criminal trial if the judge found the evidence to be germane. The manner in which the evidence had been seized was not an issue. This began to change in 1914 ,when a federal agent had conducted a warrantless search for evidence of gambling at the home of Fremont Weeks. The evidence seized in the search was used at trial, and Weeks was convicted. On appeal, the Court held that the Fourth Amendment barred the use of evidence secured through a warrantless search. Weeks's conviction was reversed, and thus was born, “The Exclusionary Rule.” The Exclusionary Rule established in Weeks was constitutionally required only in federal court until Mapp v. Ohio. In Mapp, Cleveland police officers had gone to the home of Dollree Mapp to ask her questions regarding a recent...
Words: 587 - Pages: 3
...September 17, 2013 Week v. United States What is the main issue or question involved in the case? Weeks v. United States was a Supreme Court case that the Court unanimously held that the warrantless seizure of items from a private residence constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment. On December 21, 1911 Mr. Weeks was arrested by police without a warrant, at the Union Station in K.C. Missouri, where he was employed by an express company. While he was detained other officers entered his residency without a warrant and took several possessions that were turned over to U.S Marshalls. Later that same day The U.S Marshalls returned and took additional evidence to try and convict Mr. Weeks also without a warrant. What precedent or laws did the court use in order to come to its ultimate conclusion? The case raised a question about the Fourth Amendment. What kind of protection does the 4th Amendment provide for U.S citizens? How can the evidence gained by an illegal search be used? What kind of penalty will be issued to officers who gain evidence through illegal search? Mr. Week’s lawyers argued the 4th Amendment will be meaningless unless it provides some real protection. To say that people are safe from unreasonable search and seizures have no value unless it is clear that evidence from such searches cannot be used in federal court. Federal officials should not be able to break the law in order to force the law. Drawing on the Boyd v. United States case the...
Words: 1331 - Pages: 6
...However, the defendant is now claiming the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine- saying that the initial stop was illegal because North Carolina law only mandates that one of two brake lights be operational. The state, however, argues that the Good Faith exception applies, as the officer was not aware of this little known law. They are also arguing that the officer could use discretion as to whether the vehicle was safe to operate. On the other hand, Heien’s lawyers claim that just as ignorance is no defense for citizens, it should not be a defense for police officers. We covered the exclusionary rule through Weeks v US and Mapp v Ohio, which made it law for the US and the States respectively. We also discussed the Fruit of the Poisonous tree Doctrine in Silverthorne v US and Wong Sun v US. The good faith exception that the state is claiming stems from Herring v US, which makes evidence obtained through illegal measures admissible as long as the officer had no mal intent. If the court is to find that the evidence was in fact obtained in violation of FOTPT, then in...
Words: 445 - Pages: 2
...Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) Facts of the Case In Cleveland, Ohio, 3 members of local law enforcement arrived at a house with the purpose of executing a search that was obtained in order to search the property where a supposed bomb suspect was hiding out, at the house were the plaintiff, Mapp, and her daughter, both of whom lived on the second story of the two-family residence. According to officers, they had received information that someone was hiding in the home that was wanted for questioning in relation to a recent bombing. Upon knocking on the door and demanding entrance to search the premises, Miss Mapp denied the request. The officers informed their commanding officer of the situation at hand, and waited in a surveillance position outside of the residence. Several hours later, the officers attempted to gain entry into the house a second time after back up of an additional 4 police officers arrived at the scene. At this time Miss Mapp refused to even open the door, they then forced their way into the dwelling by physical force. Miss Mapp's attorney arrived at the residence, the officers would not allow him entrance, nor would they allow him to view the search warrant. While Miss Mapp continued questioning the officers about the warrant, an officer quickly flashed a piece of paper, at which time Miss Mapp grabbed the piece of paper and proceeded to hide it in her chest area. This caused a conflict between the officers and Miss Mapp, which eventually led to...
Words: 644 - Pages: 3
...exclusionary rule after the weeks v United States. This is only valid on federal level court. The exclusionary rule is when the court can legally deny a part of evidence used in a criminal trial. The exemplary rule is not apart of a citizen's rights but it's a choice that the court decides on when any law enforcement officer illegally collects evidence. The reason the exemplary rule exists is because many times officers misconduct evidence and try using it on trail. There is a few exceptions to the exemplary rule such as any evidence obtained by a police officer with a proper warrant and is believed to be valid may be used in trail ;this action is called the good faith exception. Another is called the...
Words: 789 - Pages: 4
...then I will conclude with whether or not these three cases shaped any standards of the constitutional searches and seizures in the United States. The first case that I will address is, Weeks v. United States. The issue presented in this case is the defendants belongings were taken out of his home by law enforcement officers without a warrant. The officers had broken into his home without the defendant their and removed books, papers, bonds, and so on. The defendant went before the court and petitioned them to have his property returned to him. In his petition he stated that according to sections 11 and 23 of the Missouri Constitution, and the 4th and 5th amendment were violated. The courts did order the return of the property that was not pertinent to the charges. The defendant did petition the court one more time before the trial for the rest of his property and that one was denied. In the end of this case the court unanimously ruled that the seizure of property from a private home without a warrant was indeed a violation of the Fourth Amendment. This was also the case that created the “exclusionary rule”. This means that any evidence that is gained in violation of the Fourth Amendment in not admissible in court at trial. The next case is Silverthorne Lumber Company, Inc., ET AL v. United States. This was a US Supreme court...
Words: 1077 - Pages: 5
...Amendment. In the sixth amendment the exclusionary rule applies to the violations which make sure every citizen has the right to counsel. The exclusionary rule is used and applies to anyone who lives in the United States. “The courts finally decided on the exclusionary rule, the rule that says that evidence illegally seized may not be used as evidence, as a means of enforcement. “We’re sorry" doesn't quite cut it. The courts gave as their rationale for the rule the concept of "unclean hands." If the courts, the symbol of our highest justice, use evidence they know to be illegally obtained, they condone through their use of the evidence the illegal action and they then find themselves with "unclean hands." (Hill) In Weeks v. United States during it the exclusionary rule was brought up. In the case the court held that evidence that was taken by the police was illegally taken by police who is in violation of the fourth amendment and it couldn’t be used in court. In the exclusionary rule was extended to state courts, which is to help discourage police...
Words: 1290 - Pages: 6
...Law Assignment Question:- 15. The majority opinion in Mapp v. Ohio (1961) ____________.a a. admitted that the exclusionary rule, although necessary, violated common sense b. overruled Boyd v. U.S. (1886) c. relied on the imperative of judicial integrity d. incorporated the substantive rule of the Fourth Amendment 18. Illegally seized evidence or statements may be introduced or used for each of the following hearings or purposes, EXCEPT ___________. a. alien deportation b. formulating a grand jury question c. impeaching a witness d. parole revocation 19. Each of the following statements regarding the majority opinion in United States v. Leon (1984) is correct, EXCEPT ____________. a. the Fourth Amendment is not concerned with constitutional violations by judges b. deterrence is the only reason for the exclusionary rule c. the search in the case violated the Fourth Amendment d. the exclusionary rule exacts substantial social costs 20. The affi davit in Spinelli v. U.S. (1969) included every element EXCEPT ___________. a. Spinelli crossed a bridge every day and went to the same apartment b. Spinelli had a reputation as a “bookie” c. the apartment had two telephones d. Spinelli’s bookmaking calls were recorded 23. An argument used in courts to oppose the “plain feel” rule was ____________. a. extending reasons to justify police searches undermine civil liberties b. the sense of touch is not as sensitive as...
Words: 1264 - Pages: 6
...Assignment 2; Procedural Criminal Law 1. Explain to me why the Mapp v. Ohio case is as important as it relates to the 14th Amendment. In the case of Mapp v Ohio police suspected that Dollaree Mapp could be helping a suspect hide in her home from the police Cleveland, Ohio. The police knocked on Mapp’s front door insisting that Mapp let them in, due to the police not having a search warrant Mapp told the police no. several hours later the police refrained from watching Mapp’s home and forced their way into Mapp’s home waiving a warrant as they entered. During the police searches they came across a trunk containing explicit materials. Mapp was then arrested and charged with possession of explicit materials. The Fourth Amendment "put the courts of the United States and federal officials under limitations and forever secures the people of their persons, houses, papers and effects against all unreasonable searches and seizures. By including only United States and federal officials in its ruling, the Court still left open the question of whether evidence unlawfully seized could be used in a state criminal court proceeding. (Lisa Pahm) The case Wolf v. Colorado in 1949, due to the effect the Fourth Amendment was discussed for the first time on the states. If the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment united is determined,...
Words: 978 - Pages: 4
...at the home of Don King, who later became an infamous boxing promoter, on the day of May 23, 1957. Just Days later Cleveland police received an anonymous tip that a suspect in the bombing, Virgil Ogletree, was hiding in the home of Dollree Mapp. Sergeant Carl I. Delau, Officer Thomas J. Dever, and Officer Michael J. Haney, officers of Cleveland Bureau of Special Investigation, surrounded Mapp’s home and asked to be let in but could not produce a search warrant. Mapp contacted her lawyers and they advised her to let them in if they provided a warrant. When Lieutenant White arrived at the scene all other police personnel believed that they now had a warrant so they forced entry into Mrs. Mapp’s home with a falsified warrant. They searched...
Words: 563 - Pages: 3
