Mapp v. Ohio was a landmark Supreme Court case that was decided in 1961. At the time, it was seen as a major victory for civil liberties and civil rights, as it established the principle of "exclusionary rule" in the United States. The exclusionary rule states that evidence that is obtained illegally or in violation of an individual's constitutional rights cannot be used against them in a criminal trial.
The case arose when Cleveland police officers arrived at the home of Dollree Mapp, a resident of Cleveland, Ohio, in search of a suspect who was believed to have fled to her home. The officers did not have a warrant, and Mapp refused to allow them to enter her home without one. Despite this, the officers forcibly entered the home and searched it. During the search, they found pornographic materials, which were illegal to possess under Ohio law at the time. Mapp was subsequently arrested and charged with possession of obscene materials.
Mapp argued that the evidence against her had been obtained illegally, as the police officers had violated her Fourth Amendment rights when they entered her home without a warrant. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and requires that police officers have probable cause and a warrant before conducting a search. Mapp's legal team argued that the evidence against her should be excluded from her trial, as it had been obtained in violation of her constitutional rights.
The case made its way to the Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled in favor of Mapp. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that the evidence against Mapp had been obtained illegally and was therefore inadmissible in her trial. The Court stated that the exclusionary rule was necessary in order to deter law enforcement officers from violating the constitutional rights of individuals and to protect the integrity of the judicial system.
The Mapp v. Ohio decision had a significant impact on criminal law in the United States. It established the exclusionary rule as a fundamental principle of criminal procedure, and it has been applied in numerous cases since its inception. The decision also had a profound effect on civil liberties and civil rights, as it reinforced the importance of protecting the constitutional rights of individuals from unlawful government intrusion.
Mapp v. Ohio Case Summary: What You Need to Know
Indeed, every member of this Court who participated in the decision of that case recognized this interrelationship and relied on it, to some extent at least, as justifying reversal of Rochin's conviction. In that case, the intel from the questioning and the physical evidence could be inadmissible at trial. It meant, quite simply, that "conviction by means of unlawful seizures and enforced confessions. Like Don King, Ms. Dollree Mapp was charged with possession of obscene material. Justice Bradley's and Mr. Additionally, resolution of Petitioner's claims is not so complex that the appointment of counsel is required.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Less than 30 years after Boyd, this Court, in Weeks v. Instead it held that "If anyone looks at a book and finds it lewd, he is forthwith, under this legislation, guilty. These include the recent discarding of the "silver platter" doctrine which allowed federal judicial use of evidence seized in violation of the Constitution by state agents, Elkins v. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. Mapp then appealed to the U. That position had the necessary votes to carry the day. But even this did not lessen the confusion in this area of the law because the continued existence of mutually inconsistent precedents together with the Court's inability to settle upon a majority opinion in the Irvine case left the situation at least as uncertain as it had been before.
Mapp v. Ohio
There too the innocent would be confounded with the guilty. However, such is not the situation. She was subsequently tried and convicted of being in possession of the obscene material, and her conviction was upheld by the Ohio Supreme Court. For in overruling Wolf the Court, instead of passing upon the validity of Ohio's § 2905. She grabbed it and thrust it down the front of her dress. United States, supra, at 218.
What was the dissenting opinion of Mapp v Ohio?
Kearns appealed the case to the U. She appealed to the Wolf and Rochin the exclusionary rule did not have to apply. A paper, claimed to be a warrant, was held up by one of the officers. Were it otherwise, then just as without the Weeks rule the assurance against unreasonable federal searches and seizures would be "a form of words," valueless and undeserving of mention in a perpetual charter of inestimable human liberties, so too, without that rule the freedom from state invasions of privacy would be so ephemeral and so neatly severed from its conceptual nexus with the freedom from all brutish means of coercing evidence as not to merit this Court's high regard as a freedom "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. Justice Cardozo, then chief judge of the New York Court of Appeals, to reject for New York in People v.
