Mapp V. Ohio

CRJU 310 Judge Oberholzer April 12, 2009 Mapp v. Ohio * Mapp v. Ohio * 367 U. S. 643 * (1961) * Character of feat Mrs. Mapp was effect guilty and sentenced to prison 1-7 years. Mrs. Mapp and her virtueyer took the case to the Supreme judicial system in Ohio. * Facts trine constabulary officers went to Dollree Mapps mansion asking permission to enter into her house, because they believed that she was cover a walkaway in her home. When she did non allow the law of nature officers into her home, the legal philosophy officers odd and came back three hours later with a look for imprimatur.When Ms. Mapp asked the police officer if she could squ ar up the stock instance, he held up a blame of paper that was believed to be a spurt warrant. The police officer handcuffed Ms. Mapp for resisting carry. As the police officers looked around her house, they did not mark any(prenominal)(prenominal) fugitive further they did bechance pornographic material in a suitcase that w as by Mrs. Mapps bed. Mrs. Mapp told the police officers that the pornographic material was not hers but that it belonged to another individual that she had loaned the suitcase too. Mrs.Mapp was arrested, set in motion guilty and sentenced for having pornographic material. * Issues A. Was the issuance of the warrant by the police officer incapacitate in violation of the fourth and ordinal Amendments? YES. B. In the absence of a warrant, whitethorn a search and seizure believe place in a soulfulnesss home without their consent? no C. Is record obtained, without a warrant, from voluntary entry of a third party inadmissible in a court of law in violation of the quartern and ordinal Amendments? NO. * Decision The Court held that the exclusionary practice, which prevents unconstitutionally btained evidence from organism introduced at endeavor, applies to nominates as well as to the federal government. * majority conviction (by rightness Clark) Issue (A) Yes. Reasons i. T he ordinal Amendment requires that a neutral and isolated magistrate moldiness issue a warrant. ii. legal expert Clark declared, The exclusionary rule should to a fault apply to states, saying that states are not permitted to use evidence gained by illegal means to convict a person. With a 6-3 vote of approval, Mapps case was upset and the law was forever changed. Issue (B) no Reasons i. justness Clark declared, We hold that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the piece of music is inadmissible in a state court Were it otherwise the assurance against counterintuitive searches and seizures would be meaningless. Mrs. Mapp at the time of her arrest was not issue a warrant just a piece of paper. The police officers still searched her house without her consent. 09. Concerning Opinion by (Justice Black) Justice Black shares the distrust that The tail Amendment alone can be utilise to prevent illegally obtained evidence from being used in state courts because it is not explicitly stated.Justice Black also believes the command that no unreasonable searches or seizures be allowed is too little to vulgarise such a large decision. With these differences digression Justice Black feels that along with forward court decisions that the one-quarter Amendments ban against unreasonable searches and seizures is considered to subscribeher with the Fifth Amendments ban against compelled self-incrimination, a constitutional basis emerges which not still justifies, but actually requires the exclusionary rule. concord/dissent Opinion (by Justice Clark, whom the Chief Justice joins) These two justices, Clark and Brennan came to an agreement with Mrs. Mapp that her rights as a citizen of the United States were violated. Both Justices used the one-fourth Amendment and that is evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, may not be used in criminal prosecutions in state cou rts, as well as federal courts. Concurring/Dissenting Opinion (by Chief Black)Justice Black found that the case was a combination of the Fourth and Fifth Amendment and not with the ordinal Amendment. Justice Black turned out to be the swing vote. Even though, he fall in the Courts opinion he did it for his own reasons. For the reason, Justice Black wrote a separate opinion that was not fall in by any other justice. Concurring/Dissenting Opinion (by Justice Stewart) Justice Stewart wrote the majority opinion in Elkins. Yet, he refused to join the Courts opinion. He did vote with the majority to reverse Mrs. Mapps conviction. 10. CommentMapp v. Ohio is an important case that make history. For the reason it has to do the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment. All evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Federal Constitution is inadmissible in a criminal trial in a state court. animate being v. Colorado, 338 U. S. 25, overruled insofar as it holds to the contrary. Pp . 367 U. S. 643-660. (A) A warrant must be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate who is not knotted in either the investigation or prosecution of the suspect upon whom such a warrant is issued (Harvard Law Review, Vol. 5(3), 1971, pp. 239-250). (B) At the trial, no search warrant was produced by the prosecution, nor was the ill fortune to produce one explained or accounted for. At best, There is, in the record, considerable doubt as to whether there ever was any warrant for the search of defendants home. 170 Ohio St. at 430, 166 N. E. 2d at 389. The Ohio Supreme Court believed a reasonable argument could be made that the conviction should be reverse because the methods employed to obtain the evidence . . . here such as to offend a sand of justice, but the court found decisive the fact that the evidence had not been interpreted from defendants person by the use of bestial or offensive physical soldiers against defendant. 170 Ohio St. at 431, 166 N. E. 2d at 389-390. Mr s. Mapp took a stand against the police officers because she felt she was doing nothing wrong. The police officers assumed that Mrs. Mapp was snarly in hiding a fugitive as well as in hiding some illegal forebode equipment. When the police officers got to Mrs.Mapps house they asked to go in she said no. Three hours later the police officers came back with a piece of paper (not a search warrant) when Mrs. Mapp asked to see the warrant she had to struggle to get it. The judges overturned the conviction because the police officers had violated the fourth Amendment. 11. Principle of the baptistry A warrant issued by any public official, other than neutral and detached magistrate is invalid in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. A persons home cannot be searched without their consent or without a search warrant.