Mapp Vs Ohio Case Study

415 Words2 Pages
Out of all the amendments the fourth amendment protects humans against unlawful search and seizure. In short the police can’t come without a warrant and take “evidence” to a crime you may or may not done. That is the case in Mapp Vs. Ohio. Her house was searched and evidence was seized. May 23, 1957 Dolltree Mapp was at home when police showed up. They were looking for a bomber and received information that the suspect may have been at her residence. When police arrived they entered her house, without a warrant, and searched for the suspect but they instead found photos of a mature nature I assume and it was against the law in Ohio at the time. She was placed under arrest and the photos were taken in as evidence. Where does the fourth amendment comes in to this? Well this whole thing was very unethical and unprofessional seeing as how they came for one thing and found another both unrelated from each other.…show more content…
at 430, 166 N.E.2d at 389”. The prosecution was trying to get the court to get on his side that the unreasonably taken evidence from the court was still good to go. “A prosecution in a State court for a State crime, the Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure”. It was the fourth amendment Vs. the courts and the courts won. Ms. Mapp did get a appeal saying that in fact the evidence that was recovered from her home wasn’t under legal circumstances and she won the right to appeal to a higher
Open Document