Mapp v. Ohio

1038 Words5 Pages
JADM240: Introduction to criminal courts | Mapp V. Ohio | | | David Brann | 3/11/2012 | | The case of Mapp v. Ohio has taken place over 50 years ago, yet still plays an important role in our criminal court system today. It is a case in which the fourth amendment protects the defendant based on illegally obtained evidence. This report will detail the major facts of the case, arguments that Ms. Mapp had brought forth, the final ruling of the court, and how it still impacts the trails that are seen by the courts today. Dolree Mapp was convicted of possessing lewd and provocative materials, which violated the Ohio Revised Code, along with harboring a suspected bomber (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 2012). Cleveland, Ohio police officers went to her house a second time within three hours, after she originally denied consent to search, and forced themselves inside. During this illegal search, the Cleveland police officers found a chest that contained some of the obscene materials they were supposedly looking for. Yet, during this search Ms. Mapp had asked to see the search warrant and as the officer held it too her face she grabbed it and placed it down her blouse. She was then handcuffed as being belligerent and not allowing the officers to conduct the search. There was a little scuffle between Ms. Mapp and the officers, and Ms. Mapp proclaimed that they had injured her during this time of rough handling. Later, her attorney eventually arrived on the scene, but was not allowed to enter the house or converse with his client (Thomson Reuters, 2012). Ms. Mapp had many arguments that were in her favor. Primarily, she had asked to see a search warrant, which only generated a piece of paper that she was not allowed to read. But even before this the officers had forcefully gained entry into the hallway without giving adequate time for her

More about Mapp v. Ohio

Open Document