Mapp V. Ohio

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 lawyer alsok the brass to the Supreme dally in Ohio. * Facts Three law of nature officers went to Dollree Mapps base asking permission to enter into her house, because they believed that she was hiding a fugitive in her home. When she did non allow the legal philosophy force officers into her home, the police officers left and came hind end three hours later with a search authority.When Ms. Mapp asked the police officer if she could make up ones mind the warrant, he held up a piece of penning that was believed to be a fake warrant. The police officer handcuffed Ms. Mapp for resisting arrest. As the police officers looked near her house, they did not find any fugitive but they did find adult material in a constipate that was by Mrs. Mapps bed. Mrs. Mapp told the police officers that the pornographic material was not hers but that it belonged to another individual that she had loaned the suit example too. Mrs.Mapp was arrested, found guilty and sentenced for having pornographic material. * Issues A. Was the issuance of the warrant by the police officer invalid in violation of the quartern and Fourteenth Amendments? YES. B. In the absence of a warrant, may a search and seizure nonplus place in a persons home without their coincide? NO. C. Is evidence obtained, without a warrant, from voluntary submission of a terce party impermissible in a court of law in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments? NO. * Decision The Court held that the exclusionary rule, which prevents unconstitutionally btained evidence from existence introduced at trial, applies to call downs as well as to the national government. * Majority Opinion (by nicety Clark) Issue (A) Yes. Reasons i. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that a nonsubjective and detached magistrate must issue a warrant. ii. justness Clark declared, The exclusionary rule should in addition apply to states, saying that states are not permitted to use evidence gained by illegal means to convict a person. With a 6-3 vote of approval, Mapps case was overturned and the law was forever changed. Issue (B) No. Reasons i. rightness Clark declared, We hold that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is impermissible in a state court Were it otherwise the assurance against exuberant searches and seizures would be meaningless. Mrs. Mapp at the time of her arrest was not issue a warrant just a piece of paper. The police officers still searched her house without her consent. 09. Concerning Opinion by ( justice moody) arbiter Black shares the doubt that The Fourth Amendment only when can be used to prevent illegally obtained evidence from being used in state courts because it is not explicitly stated.Justice Black also believes the command that no absurd 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 Amendments ban against unreasonable searches and seizures is considered together with the Fifth Amendments ban against compelled self-incrimination, a constitutional basis emerges which not only justifies, but actually requires the exclusionary rule. hold/Dissenting Opinion (by Justice Clark, whom the Chief Justice joins) These two justices, Clark and Brennan came to an agreement with Mrs. Mapp that her rights as a citizen of the joined States were violated. Both Justices used the Fourth Amendment and that is evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, may not be used in felon prosecutions in state courts, as well as federal courts. Concurring/Dissenting Opinion (by Chief Black)Justice Black found that the case was a c ombination of the Fourth and Fifth Amendment and not with the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Black turned out to be the swing vote. Even though, he joined the Courts opinion he did it for his own reasons. For the reason, Justice Black wrote a separate opinion that was not joined by any other justice. Concurring/Dissenting Opinion (by Justice Stewart) Justice Stewart wrote the majority opinion in Elkins. Yet, he refused to join the Courts opinion. He did vote with the majority to reverse Mrs. Mapps conviction. 10. CommentMapp v. Ohio is an strategic case that made history. For the reason it has to do the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment. on the whole 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 immaterial 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. 5(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 defendants 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 . . . here such as to despoil a sense of justice, but the court found determinative the accompaniment that the evidence had not been taken from defendants person by the use of feral or offensive physical force against defendant. 170 Ohio St. at 431, 166 N. E. 2d at 389-390. Mrs. Mapp took a stand against the police officers because she felt she was doing nothing wrong. The police officers as sumed that Mrs. Mapp was involved in hiding a fugitive as well as in hiding some illegal sporting equipment. When the police officers got to Mrs.Mapps house they asked to go in she said no. Three hours later the police officers came back with a piece of paper (not a search warrant) when Mrs. Mapp asked to see the warrant she had to struggle to get it. The resolve overturned the conviction because the police officers had violated the fourth Amendment. 11. Principle of the fictitious character A warrant issued by any public official, other than neutral and detached magistrate is invalid in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. A persons home cannot be searched without their consent or without a search warrant.