In a quick overview of the case Mapp v. Ohio which ended in a ground breaking Supreme Court decision police officers in Cleveland, Ohio were watching a women named Dolree Mapp. The reason for the surveillance because police felt she was a guilty of harboring a fugitive in addition she was also suspected to have illegal gambling material in her house. Under advisement from her lawyer Mapp refused to let police search her house without a warrant. After this contact police returned three hours later and when there was no answer at the door police force their way in, Mapp demanded to see a search warrant the police showed a piece of paper which Mapp snatched from police to discover that it was not a search warrant. Through the search of the house police found illegal pornographic material but nothing that they suspected her on, at which time police arrested Mapp for the illegal pornographic material.
The facts of the case are simple: 1 Dolree Mapp in no way, shape, or form consented to a police search. 2 Police officers didn’t not have a search warrant for Dolree Mapp, her house, nor for her property.3 Police had no probable cause that to enter the residence. 4 Police abused their power by trying to misguide and mislead Mapp into believe they had a search warrant.
Dolree Mapp basis for her appeal on her conviction of the possession of obscene materials was on the fact that it was an illegal search. Even though she was guilty the evidence against her was founded from an illegal search and seizure by police, and since police had no search warrant Mapp argued that the illegal obtained evidence should not be used against her in court.
Mapp v. Ohio has affected many cases since however it had a bigger impact on the criminal justice procedure as a whole. Prior to this case there was an exclusion rule in place created almost 50 years but before this case and before the Supreme Court ruling the exclusion rule was only in...