The police searched her residence but did not find the bombing suspect.However the police did find obscene materials in the house, and Miss Mapp was placed under arrest. Miss Mapp was found guilty and convicted for the illegal materials found in her residence. All evidence found at Miss Mapp’s residence was in violation of the fourth amendment (no unlawful search and seizures) because they did not have a real search warrant.The police, who possessed no warrant to search Mapp's property had acted unlawfully. Any incriminating evidence found during the search should, therefore, be thrown out of court and her conviction overturned. If the 4th Amendment did not limit the prerogatives of police on the local and State level, local law enforcement would have a mandate to search wherever, whenever, and whomever they pleased.
Dollree was arrested for the possession of lewd and lascivious books under the Ohio Revised Code 2905.34-.35 (The Cleveland Memory Project). However, they could not convict her due to her fourth amendment right which states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” (Bill of Rights Transcript Text). This case was important in defining the use of the “exclusionary rule”. When the Cleveland Police Department received an anonymous phone tip of the whereabouts of Virgil Ogletree, a suspect in the bombing, they were headed straight to the Mapp resident. Officers from the Cleveland Bureau of Special Investigation Sergeant Carl I. Deleau, Officer Thomas J. Dever, and Officer Micheal J. Haney surrounded Dollree’s home and requested entry.
Prosecution Argument: Brinegar already had a reputation on transporting illegal alcohol, and when was pulled over he admitted to having some alcohol on him. Defense Argument: That the police had no probable cause on seizing the alcohol, or a warrant. Decision/ Rationale: While the police don’t always have to be correct in conducting a warrantless search, but the search must always be reasonable. Dissent: 6-3: Mr.Jackson dissented that, “the 4th amendment and are not mere second-class rights but belong in the catalog of indispensable
The water bottle contained alcohol. Ms. Baker, being under twenty-one, was charged with minor possession of alcohol. Holding: In this case, the officers should not have had their weapons draw while approaching and they had not reason to open the water bottle and exceeded the scope of the frisk. The officers did not use the frisk for safety reasons and their initial reason for the stop was not substantiated after a search of the grocery bag. Rationale: While the officers may have had a reasonable suspicion for the initial stop, their actions in the circumstances surrounding the stop were incorrect and unlawful.
Sarah takes the computer, carries it home and tells everyone she owns it. – This would be theft there’s one victim and she was not held in duress or even had knowledge of the crime being committed. It is not Sarah’s intend to harm Makoto just to steal her computer when she’s not looking. 2. While passing Makoto’s house one night.
Criminal behavior would all be situational are we assuming that I’m a law abiding normal citizen or what. If this is pertaining to the me here and now then these factors are kind of pointless to make most of them minus the drug issue. Then again what types of criminal behavior are we talking is it j-walking shoplifting grand theft auto or anything like these. Honesty and dishonesty are always factors in self-report studies simply because when someone lies or is dishonest on a self-report study they then jeopardies the whole study there is no real way to tell if someone is telling the truth on a study or just simply filling in the blanks the way they think that someone would like them filled
Patrice Foster Professor Hayaud-Din Government 2301-2406 Summer I 2012 Extra Credit Abolishing The Exclusionary Rule Word Count: Patrice Foster The Exclusionary Rule The Exclusionary Rule is a senseless rule. We should get rid of it and the police and prosecutors should be able to use the evidence even if it’s obtained in violation of the rule, because we could potentially let criminals go to satisfy this rule. This rule is so full of controversy, that it is hard to support. How can we as citizens embrace this rule? A rule that does so little to protect the law as it was made.
These hoaxes amplify society’s image of the criminalblackman. These white-on-black racial hoaxes are often times believed immediately because society finds it highly likely that a black person did indeed commit the crime. Often times the perpetrators of these racial hoaxes are only charged with filing a false police report, if any charges are brought at all. In the event the perpetrator is charged with the crime they are trying to cover up, it is less likely that any additional charges will be filed for the hoax since they are already being charged with the more serious crime. Typically there is not amends of any kind made to the person or the community that has been affected by the hoax; not even a simple apology.
In the Mapp v Ohio case it was believed that Mapp may be hiding a person suspected in a bombing. Police went to her door and demanded to be let in, she denied them entry. Eventually, after forcing their way into her residence they found pornographic material. They arrested and charged her with violating the Ohio state law that states that no person should be in possession of any kind of obscene materials. She was found guilty.
This belief helps Roskolnikov justify his behavior for eliminating her from society. First Roskolnikov plots his murderous act by going to Ivanovna’s apartment, which was also a pawnshop. Roskolnikov went there scoping the safety box where the items of monetary value were kept. While there he asked Alyona Ivanovna if her younger sister was always there. After scoping the pawnbrokers daily environment he went to a tavern to think more aggressively about the murder plan that he was not even sure he could commit.