Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Essay Sample
Facts: In Mapp v. Ohio ( 1961 ) . the constabulary thought Dollree Mapp was concealing a suspect they were looking for in connexion with constructing a bomb. The constabulary officers lied and said they had a hunt warrant of which they did non and forced their manner into Mapp’s place and searched it. While seeking the place. the constabulary found grounds. non for a bomb. but of adult stuff that violated Ohio’s jurisprudence and she was arrested. The Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court. the Ohio Court of Appeals. and the Ohio Supreme Court all ruled against Dollree Mapp. The U. S. Supreme Court ruled in her favour and reversed the charges based on the exclusionary regulation ( Casebriefs. 2012 ) . Procedural history: Mapp was charged and convicted of holding adult stuff in all of Ohio’s lower tribunals including Ohio’s Appeal Court. and the Ohio Supreme Court. The U. S. Supreme Court found that the grounds seized in the hunt was illegal because there was no cogent evidence of a hunt warrant. The points seized from the hunt had nil to make with a bomb. the ground they were at that place. and it was non in apparent position. The charges were reversed ( Samaha. 2012 ) .
Issue: Was the hunt of Mapp’s place a misdemeanor of the Fourth Amendment? Was the grounds used against Mapp in tribunal illegal? The issue was the constitutionality of utilizing grounds obtained from illegal or unreasonable hunt and ictus to prosecute a suspect in tribunal. The Supreme Court held grounds obtained from a suspect illicitly could non be used at test without go againsting the Fourth Amendment ( Casebriefs. 2012 ) . Rule: The hunt was illegal because there was no warrant. the stuffs were non in apparent position and they were non related to the instance. All grounds discovered as a consequence of a hunt and ictus conducted in misdemeanor of the Fourth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution shall be inadmissible in State tribunal proceedings. This is called the exclusionary regulation. It established that tribunals may non accept grounds obtained by unreasonable hunt and ictus. regardless of its relevancy to a instance. Weeks v. United States ( 1914 ) made the regulation applicable at the federal degree ; Mapp v. Ohio ( 1961 ) made it applicable to all tribunals. including provinces ( Casebriefs. 2012 ) . Analysis: The Right to Privacy was upheld.
Harmonizing to this instance persons do non hold to let a hunt by officers who do non hold a hunt warrant. and the stuffs illicitly obtained without a warrant can non be used in a prosecution. The Mapp determination allowed infinite felons to travel free because of constabulary errors ( Samaha. 2012 ) . Decision: By a ballot of 6-3 the tribunal ruled that illicitly obtained grounds was non admissible. The tribunal declared that all grounds illicitly obtained by hunts and ictuss in misdemeanor of the U. S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment. is inadmissible in a province tribunal. It placed the demand of excepting illicitly obtained grounds from tribunal at all degrees of the authorities. While the Court acknowledged keeping the constabulary would necessarily ensue in some felons traveling free. usage of the exclusionary regulation was the lone hindrance that had proven effectual in forestalling the constabulary and prosecution from conflicting Fourth Amendment rights. Dollree Mapp’s strong belief was reversed and remanded ( Samaha. 2012 ) . Dollree Mapp should travel free because the Cleveland constabularies messed up. They lied about holding a hunt warrant and searched Mapp’s house against her will. At that clip the Exclusionary Rule did non use to State Courts. it merely applied to Federal Prosecutions until this instance.
The tribunal ruled Mapp should travel free because any grounds illicitly obtained by hunt and ictus is a Fourth Amendment misdemeanor. Other redresss available to Dollree Mapp are condemnable actions against the constabulary officers that illicitly broke in and searched her house. She could take State Tort Actions against them. Which means Mapp could action the constabulary officers for Acts of the Apostless such as false apprehension. false imprisonment. intruding. or interrupting and come ining ( Samaha. 2012 ) . It is really difficult to win in instances where an single Sues jurisprudence enforcement based on the equilibrating trial where officer’s occupations are to protect the populace. Because of this I would urge that alternatively of actioning. Mapp should inquire that any punishments assessed by the Ohio tribunals be vacated. That any record of her apprehension and strong belief be expunged. and that the records be sealed. I do thing that Mapp should be entitled to some sort of compensation for her clip spent in gaol. and her lawyer fees. Even if the constabulary officers had a hunt warrant. it would hold been for a bombardment suspect. or point related to a bomb. non for adult stuff. so they couldn’t have taken that type of grounds anyhow ( Samaha. 2012 ) .
Mentions:
Casebriefs ( 2012 ) . Mapp v. Ohio. Casebriefs. LLC. Retrieved on September 13. 2012 from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. casebriefs. com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-keyed-to-saltzburg/searches-and-seizures-of-persons-and-things/mapp-v-ohio-3/
Samaha. Joel ( 2012 ) . Condemnable Procedure. Eighth Edition. Belmont. CA. Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
