Mapp V. Ohio Case Study
CRJU 310
Judge Oberholzer
April 12, 2009
Mapp v. Ohio
* Mapp v. Ohio * 367 U.S. 643 * (1961) * Character of Action
Mrs. Mapp was found guilty and sentenced to prison 1-7 years. Mrs. Mapp and her attorney took the case to the Supreme Court in Ohio. * Facts:
Three police officers went to Dollree Mapp’s house asking permission to enter into her house, because they believed that she was hiding a fugitive in her home. When she did not allow the police officers into her home, the police officers left and came back three hours later with a search warrant. When Ms. Mapp asked the police officer if she could see the warrant, he held up a piece of paper that was believed to be a fake warrant. The police officer …show more content…
Justice Black also believes the command that no unreasonable searches or seizures be allowed is too little to infer such a large decision. With these differences aside Justice Black feels that along with previous court decisions that the "Fourth Amendment's ban against unreasonable searches and seizures is considered together with the Fifth Amendment's ban against compelled self-incrimination, a constitutional basis emerges which not only justifies, but actually requires the exclusionary …show more content…
Yet, he refused to join the Court’s opinion. He did vote with the majority to reverse Mrs. Mapp’s conviction.
10. Comment:
Mapp v. Ohio is an important case that made 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. Wolf 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 involved in either the investigation or prosecution of the suspect upon whom such a warrant is issued (Harvard Law Review, Vol. 85(3), 1971, pp.239-250).
(B) At the trial, no search warrant was produced by the prosecution, nor was the failure 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 defendant's 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 reversed "because the methods' employed to obtain the [evidence] . . . where such as to `offend "a sense of justice,"'" but the court found determinative the fact that the evidence had not been taken "from defendant's person by the use of brutal or offensive physical force against defendant." 170 Ohio St. at 431, 166
Judge Oberholzer
April 12, 2009
Mapp v. Ohio
* Mapp v. Ohio * 367 U.S. 643 * (1961) * Character of Action
Mrs. Mapp was found guilty and sentenced to prison 1-7 years. Mrs. Mapp and her attorney took the case to the Supreme Court in Ohio. * Facts:
Three police officers went to Dollree Mapp’s house asking permission to enter into her house, because they believed that she was hiding a fugitive in her home. When she did not allow the police officers into her home, the police officers left and came back three hours later with a search warrant. When Ms. Mapp asked the police officer if she could see the warrant, he held up a piece of paper that was believed to be a fake warrant. The police officer …show more content…
Justice Black also believes the command that no unreasonable searches or seizures be allowed is too little to infer such a large decision. With these differences aside Justice Black feels that along with previous court decisions that the "Fourth Amendment's ban against unreasonable searches and seizures is considered together with the Fifth Amendment's ban against compelled self-incrimination, a constitutional basis emerges which not only justifies, but actually requires the exclusionary …show more content…
Yet, he refused to join the Court’s opinion. He did vote with the majority to reverse Mrs. Mapp’s conviction.
10. Comment:
Mapp v. Ohio is an important case that made 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. Wolf 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 involved in either the investigation or prosecution of the suspect upon whom such a warrant is issued (Harvard Law Review, Vol. 85(3), 1971, pp.239-250).
(B) At the trial, no search warrant was produced by the prosecution, nor was the failure 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 defendant's 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 reversed "because the methods' employed to obtain the [evidence] . . . where such as to `offend "a sense of justice,"'" but the court found determinative the fact that the evidence had not been taken "from defendant's person by the use of brutal or offensive physical force against defendant." 170 Ohio St. at 431, 166