Mapp v. Ohio
| Mapp v. Ohio | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued March 29, 1961 Decided June 19, 1961 | |
| Full case name | Dollree Mapp v. State of Ohio |
| Citations | 367 U.S. 643 (more) 81 S. Ct. 1684; 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081; 1961 U.S. LEXIS 812; 86 Ohio L. Abs. 513; 16 Ohio Op. 2d 384; 84 A.L.R.2d 933 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Defendant convicted, Cuyahoga County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas; affirmed, Ohio Court of Appeals; affirmed, 166 N.E.2d 387 (Ohio 1960) |
| Subsequent | Rehearing denied, 368 U.S. 871 (1961) |
| Holding | |
| The Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth, excludes unconstitutionally obtained evidence from use in criminal prosecutions. Supreme Court of Ohio reversed. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Clark, joined by Warren, Black, Douglas, Brennan |
| Concurrence | Black, Douglas, Stewart |
| Dissent | Harlan |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. IV; U.S. Const. amend. XIV | |
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)[1], was a landmark case in the area of U.S. criminal procedure, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures" may not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well as federal courts.
Overview
When the Cleveland Police received news that Dollree Mapp and her daughter were harboring a suspected bombing fugitive, they immediately went to her house and demanded entrance. Mapp called her attorney and under his advice she refused to give them entry because they didn’t have a warrant. Several hours later, more officers came to her door and demanded that they be permitted to enter her house. After Mapp refused, they forcibly opened a door to the house and proceeded in. Mapp confronted them and demanded to see the search warrant. The police waved a piece of paper in the air (claiming it was the warrant) and Mapp grabbed it and put it down her shirt. One officer reached down her shirt and grabbed it. The officers then handcuffed her. They searched her entire house and when they reached her basement they found a chest filled with pornographic material. The officers arrested Mapp for violating an Ohio law which prohibited the possession of obscene material. At her trial, Mapp was found guilty based on the evidence that was presented by the police. Mapp’s attorney questioned the police about the warrant but they could not show one. This led Mapp to appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Mapp’s attorney claimed that she should not have even been tried because the evidence that was used against her was obtained without a warrant, which is illegal. The Ohio Supreme Court agreed that this was a “reasonable argument” but they said the evidence was still permissible because the material was forced from the chest and not the individual. Mapp’s conviction was upheld, so she appealed to the Supreme Court of the U.S.
Arguments
In the Supreme Court, the prosecution claimed that Mapp was guilty because of the possession of obscene materials which is illegal in the state of Ohio. Mapp's attorney argued that the law prohibiting possession of obscene materials violated her First Amendment rights. In oral arguments, Mapp's attorney expressly disavowed any intention to question whether the illegally obtained evidence was admissible in court. An amicus curiae brief filed by the American Civil Liberties Union was the only source to suggest that the conviction should be overturned based on the illegal search. Interestingly, however, the Court chose to decide the case based on the legality of evidence and not the First Amendment question. This powerful argument caused the court to rule in favor of Mapp and overturn the decision of the original case.
Trivia
Boxing promoter Don King was the informant who reported the bombing that led to the Mapp case. (See, Corrinna Barret Lain (2004). ""Countermajoritarian Hero or Zero?"". U. Penn. Law Review. 152 (1361): 1375. {{cite journal}}: External link in |title=
According to the book "The Devils Advocates" by Michael C. Lief, Don King was the victim of a fire-bombing because of his involvement in the illegal numbers rackets and his cooperation with the police in attempting to "shut down" a local mobster who was extorting King. After the fire-bombing an anonymous phone call (not attributed to King) led the police to Dollree Mapp's house in connections with the bombing.[citation needed]
References
- ^ 367 U.S. 643 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
General references:
- Long, Carolyn (2006). Mapp v. Ohio: Guarding Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures. University Press of Kansas. ISBN 0700614419.
{{cite book}}: Check date values in:|year=(help)CS1 maint: year (link)
External links
'''''''''''The child was put iont prison for pocession of illegal porn in the state of Ohio.'''''''''''