Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 26 views

    Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)

    Uploaded by

    Ching Tan
    The Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained through an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in state criminal trials. The Court extended the exclusionary rule, which prevents the use of illegally obtained evidence by federal officers, to apply to the states as well through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This established that evidence from unconstitutional searches cannot be used in court at the state level in order to deter violations of privacy protections against arbitrary government intrusion guaranteed by the Constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)

    Uploaded by

    Ching Tan
    26 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained through an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in state criminal trials. The Court extended the exclusionary rule, which prevents the use of illegally obtained evidence by federal officers, to apply to the states as well through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This established that evidence from unconstitutional searches cannot be used in court at the state level in order to deter violations of privacy protections against arbitrary government intrusion guaranteed by the Constitution.

    Original Description:

    Procedure for issuance of a search warrant

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained through an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in state criminal trials. The Court extended the exclusionary rule, which prevents the use of illegally obtained evidence by federal officers, to apply to the states as well through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This established that evidence from unconstitutional searches cannot be used in court at the state level in order to deter violations of privacy protections against arbitrary government intrusion guaranteed by the Constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    26 views2 pages

    Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)

    Uploaded by

    Ching Tan
    The Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained through an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in state criminal trials. The Court extended the exclusionary rule, which prevents the use of illegally obtained evidence by federal officers, to apply to the states as well through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This established that evidence from unconstitutional searches cannot be used in court at the state level in order to deter violations of privacy protections against arbitrary government intrusion guaranteed by the Constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    FACTS ISSUE/S RULING

    CASE TITLE: Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)


    TOPIC: Exclusionary rule / “Fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine

    Police got a tip that a suspect wanted for questioning related to a Whether evidence obtained through an
    bombing was hiding in Dollree Mapp’s (defendant) home. Officers unreasonable and unconstitutional No. The Supreme Court held that evidence obtained through an
    forcibly entered the home without Mapp’s consent. When Mapp search and seizure admissible in state unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth
    demanded to see the warrant, police showed her a piece of paper criminal trials, despite the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in state criminal trials. The Court
    purported to be a “warrant.” However, when Mapp took the Amendment's prohibition of such extended the exclusionary rule, which prevents the use of evidence
    “warrant,” police engaged in a physical altercation to retrieve it searches by federal officers? obtained illegally by federal officers, to the states through the Due
    from her. Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    After searching the home, the officers found and seized books and Impact: The Court cited historical cases and principles, including Boyd v.
    photos that were introduced as evidence in Mapp’s criminal trial The Mapp v. Ohio decision extended the United States and Weeks v. United States, that established the Fourth
    for possessing lewd and obscene materials in violation of Ohio exclusionary rule to state criminal trials, Amendment's protection of privacy against arbitrary government
    state law. requiring that evidence obtained through intrusion. It emphasized that the "right of personal security, personal
    unreasonable and unconstitutional liberty, and private property" are fundamental aspects of the Fourth
    Mapp was convicted, even though there was no evidence that the searches be excluded from court Amendment's protections.
    police ever obtained a warrant to search Mapp’s home. proceedings. This ruling reinforced the
    Fourth Amendment's protections against Futher, The Court discussed the Weeks exclusionary rule, which
    The Ohio Supreme Court sustained the conviction, even though it unlawful searches and seizures and prohibits the use of evidence obtained through an illegal search and
    concluded there was a reasonable argument for reversal due to provided a mechanism for enforcing seizure by federal officers. It noted that this rule was an essential
    the unjust manner in which the evidence was obtained. those rights in state-level cases deterrent safeguard to protect constitutional rights against
    unreasonable searches.
    Mapp appealed to the United States Supreme Court, claiming that
    her conviction was the product of an unreasonable search and Due Process and States: The Court recognized that the Due Process
    seizure. Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment made the Fourth Amendment's
    protections applicable to the states. It emphasized that the right to
    privacy against unreasonable searches was "implicit in the concept of
    ordered liberty" and enforceable against the states.

    The Court concluded that evidence obtained through unconstitutional


    searches and seizures should be deemed inadmissible in both federal
    and state courts. It reasoned that failing to apply the exclusionary rule
    to the states would weaken the protection of constitutional rights and
    incentivize disregard for those rights.

    You might also like