In the case of mapp v. ohio (1961), what did police do that was so objectionable?
|
Show Recommended textbook solutions
Marketing Essentials: The Deca Connection1st EditionCarl A. Woloszyk, Grady Kimbrell, Lois Schneider Farese 1,600 solutions HDEV56th EditionSpencer A. Rathus 380 solutions  Myers' Psychology for the AP Course3rd EditionC. Nathan DeWall, David G Myers 955 solutions American Government1st EditionGlen Krutz 412 solutions
In 1914, the Supreme Court established the 'exclusionary rule' when it held in Weeks v. United States that the federal government could not rely on illegally seized evidence to obtain criminal convictions in federal court. The ruling in Weeks, however, was limited to the federal government. That changed with the Supreme Court's landmark 1961 decision in Mapp v. Ohio. The case arose when an Ohio woman, Dollree Mapp, refused to allow local police to enter her home without a warrant in their search for a suspected bombing fugitive. Police eventually tricked their way into the house with a false warrant and, after failing to find the suspect, charged Mapp with possessing 'lewd and lascivious' material which they found in a trunk in the basement. While Mapp's defense attorney cited the 1914 Weeks case in seeking to dismiss the charges, he failed to argue that this constitutional prohibition against using illegally obtained evidence should be applied in a state court. However, an influential brief filed by the ACLU of Ohio made just this point, and the ACLU attorney who wrote it, Bernard Berkman, ended up arguing the case before the Supreme Court. In 1961, citing the ACLU's arguments, the Supreme Court reversed Mapp's conviction and adopted the exclusionary rule as a national standard. As important as it is to convict criminals, the Supreme Court in Mapp rightly insisted that the Constitution must not be trampled in the process. 'Nothing can destroy a government more quickly,' the Court noted, 'than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence.' RESOURCES
Mapp v. Ohio was a 1961 landmark Supreme Court case decided 6–3 by the Warren Court, in which it was held that Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures applied to the states and excluded unconstitutionally obtained evidence from use in state criminal prosecutions. This decision overruled Wolf v. Colorado and reversed the conviction of appellant Dollree Mapp. Dollree Mapp’s home in Cleveland, Ohio was forcefully entered by police officers who believed that a suspected bomber was inside the house. While searching her home, officers found pornographic books. Later, Mapp was prosecuted under an Ohio statute for knowing possession of lewd and lascivious material. She was convicted even though the prosecution was unable to produce a valid search warrant. The majority held that all evidence obtained unconstitutionally, without a search warrant, is inadmissible in state criminal prosecutions. Such evidence was already barred in federal courts, but the majority agreed that the exclusionary rule for unlawfully seized evidence applied to state courts as well, through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court insisted that the exclusionary rule had to apply to the states, or else the Fourth Amendment was essentially useless. [Last updated in June of 2020 by the Wex Definitions Team] MAPP V. OHIO, decided on 20 June 1961, was a landmark court case originating in Cleveland, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that under the 4th and 14th Constitutional amendments, illegally seized evidence could not be used in a state criminal trial. This decision significantly changed state law-enforcement procedures throughout the country. The case began on 23 May 1957 when police officers
entered the Cleveland home of Dollree Mapp looking for a person wanted for questioning in a recent bombing and seeking illegal gambling paraphernalia. After a thorough search, the police found neither the person nor the gambling materials. However, they did find obscene material, which Mapp denied owning. Possession of obscene materials was then illegal according to state law, and Mapp was arrested. In the fall of 1958, she was tried, convicted, and sentenced to 1-7 years in the penitentiary. No
search warrant was produced at the trial, nor was the failure to produce one accounted for. Mapp's lawyer, Alexander L. Kearns, appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court on the basis that Ohio's obscenity law violated the right to privacy, and only secondarily that the conduct of the police in obtaining the evidence was unconstitutional. The court affirmed the conviction, and despite the absence of a search warrant, also ruled that illegally seized evidence could be entered in a criminal trial. Kearns
appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, contending that Mapp's conviction violated her constitutional rights. At the invitation of the Court, Cleveland attorney Bernard A. Berkman, representing the American Civil Liberties Union, also submitted a brief. During the oral argument, he urged the high court to examine the constitutionality of search-and-seizure usage in state courts, since federal courts prohibited the use of illegally obtained evidence. The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision
overturned Mapp's conviction, on the grounds that evidence seized without a search warrant cannot be used in state criminal prosecutions under the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the 14th Amendment, which extends that protection to state jurisdictions. How did Mapp v Ohio affect policing?Mapp v. Ohio (1961) strengthened the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, making it illegal for evidence obtained without a warrant to be used in a criminal trial in state court.
What was the issue in the Mapp v Ohio case?OHIO. MAPP V. OHIO, decided on 20 June 1961, was a landmark court case originating in Cleveland, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that under the 4th and 14th Constitutional amendments, illegally seized evidence could not be used in a state criminal trial.
What rights did Mapp v Ohio violate?Ohio, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 19, 1961, ruled (6–3) that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures,” is inadmissible in state courts.
Why did Dollree Mapp claim a search of her home violate her rights?Why did Dollree Mapp claim a search of her home violated her rights? The police searched her home without a warrant.
|
