Mapp V. Case Study

This case happened on June 19, 1961. The case was about police breaking into Dollree Mapp 's home in Cleveland, Ohio without a proper search warrant. There had been information given that a suspect in a bombing case, as well as some illegal bombing equipment might be found at her home. With this information police decided to go to the house and ask permission to enter, when Mapp refused to let them in, three hours later two of the officers came back with more officers holding a piece of paper, they broke down the door. Police found nothing when they raided the house besides a suitcase full of pornographic material.

Transcript of Civil Liberties & the Civil Rights Court Cases Assignment Civil Liberties & the Civil Rights Court Cases Assignment Gideon v Wainright Dates: Argued January 15, 1963 Decided March 18, 1963 Background: Charged in a Florida State Court with a non capital felony, petitioner appeared without funds and without counsel and asked the Court to appoint counsel for him, but this was denied on the ground that the state law permitted appointment of counsel for indigent defendants in capital cases only. Mapp v. Ohio Dates : Argued March 29, 1961

Significance: The Supreme Court here expresses that governmental conduct like drug dog sniffing that can reveal whether a substance is contraband, yet no other private fact, does not compromise any privacy interest, and therefore is not a search subject to the Fourth Amendment. Terry v. Ohio permits only brief investigative stops and extremely limited searches based on reasonable suspicion including seizures of property independent of the seizure of the

Question 2 In the case of Mapp v. Ohio, Dollree Mapp was at the center of an investigation regarding a search for a potential bombing suspect. The bombing suspect was thought to be residing in Dollree Mapp’s residence. The police originally approached Mapp’s residence and requested permission to search the residence for the bombing suspect, equipment, and gambling equipment. Mapp consulted her attorney, and declined to allow the officers to enter the residence without a search warrant.

As time goes by the state of California argued that the trash at the curb is in a area where it can be controlled by the home owner and it is not within the protection of the 4th amendment also any person passing could have access to it and no one who put trash on the curb has an expectation of privacy because it is released to the public view by the defendant but it can cause a problem for the house search is admissible as a part of the prosecution case for illegal drug trafficking .As the case continued for Greenwood they argue that the “ Adequate probable cause “ to the search the trash but the evidence should not be acceptable without the evidence gathered from the search trash and the police would have no probable cause for the house warrant . Therefore the warrant and the evidence can’t be acceptable and they didn’t have permission from Mr. Greenwood to search his trash because he had a “reasonable expectation of privacy “ and the search warrant was not admitted for prosecution

Opinion: The opinion for this case was 6-3 upholding to Mapp. She used the First Amendment rights for her case during court. However, Mapps also used the Fourth Amendment to the U.S Constitution saying that because it was an unfair search and seizure. Her house was her privacy and they were unfairly trespassing. 10.

A Washington police officer stopped a student at the Washington State University after observing the student was carrying a bottle of gin. After asking the student for identification the student informed him that is was in his dorm room. The student, followed by the officer, then went into his room get his identification. While the student was searching for his identification, the officer noticed that the student 's roommate, had marijuana seeds and a pipe on his desk. The officer asked the students if they had additional drugs in the room and the students provided him with a box with marijuana and money.

Police believed that Mapp was harboring a suspected bomber, and demanded entry. No suspect was found, but police discovered a trunk of obscene pictures in Mapp 's basement. Mapp was arrested for possessing the pictures, and was convicted in an Ohio court where she lost the case in fighting her for first amendment rights. Then, Mapp argued that her Fourth Amendment rights had been violated by the search of the officers and got her case taken to the U.S. Supreme Court where she won. At the time of the case, unlawfully seized evidence was banned from federal courts but not state courts, meaning that the evidence found in Mapp’s home was used against her in the Ohio court, but not the U.S. Supreme Court.

In this period, the Fourth Amendment was strongly upheld along with the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule is made so that police couldn't use any illegally-obtained evidence to convict a defendant. Chief Justice Earl Warren brought the exclusionary rule from local to state-level in the court case of Mapp v. Ohio. In this case, officers forced their way into a home without a search warrant because they suspected Dollree Mapp of hiding an alleged bomber, where they collected evidence so they could use it against him in court. The exclusionary rule was enforced, making none of the evidence found applicable to be used against Mapp in court.

The precedent was set in Terry v. Ohio, when the courts ruled that it was sensible for an officer to carry out a restricted search and, if required, seizure of weaponries on an individual that the officer realistically considers could be armed. The result of the Terry case was useful in the case of Michigan v. Long. In this particular case, the standard of the police search in the Terry case was expanded to include motor vehicles. According to the Michigan v. Long case, the court ruled that the police were within their rights of conducting a “Terry’s” search of the person of interest vehicle. In this case, the evidence gained from the search was not discarded as a violation of the person’s Fourth Amendment, but rather seen as being prudently

The term paper will circulate around the Exclusionary Rule’s purpose, applications, limitations, and complications alongside with landmark cases pertaining to each component. The Exclusionary Rule is a legal principle stating that evidence obtained in violation of a person's Constitutional rights, such as the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, may not be used against them in court. This is significant in understanding how the Supreme Court utilizes the U.S Constitution to infer the writer’s intention as to what should be permissible today. The purpose portion of the essay will examine why the rule was formally integrated in American law, and how judges can use it to infer what the writers of the Constitution

The Fourth Amendment protects all citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment states any form of stalking, any form of eavesdropping, any form of searching and seizing are a violation of the 4th Amendment. This protects everyone of the United States(Oyez). Searching or seizing anything from someone in a private area without a

Facts Plaintiff filed an action for damages resulting from serious injury caused by a spring gun set by defendants in a bedroom of an farm house which had been uninhabited for years. Plaintiff and his companion had broken in and entered the house. At defendants ' request plaintiff 's action was tried to a

On December 23, 1981, Thomas Sophonow, a Canadian man, was wrongfully accused of murder. 16 year old Barbara Stoppel was ruthlessly killed at the washroom of her workplace. Unfortunately, eyewitnesses mistakenly chose Mr. Sophonow as being the murderer. Eye witnesses stated that a man, whose appearance was very similar to that of Thomas Sophonow, locked the door and made his way to the back of the shop where he was presumed to have strangled Barbara Stoppel to death. Furthermore, while Thomas Sophonow was in custody, he showed an undercover officer a door locking technique.

differ in both a quantitative and a qualitative sense from other objects that might be kept on an arrestee 's person" (Garner, 2010, p. 5). Plan: Development, Plan: Communication (how does this case and precedent cases affect students, community, policy, etc.? The Fourth Amendment to the constitution is an unique law that protects United States citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures.