Up to 50% Off + 10% Off! Up to 50% Off + 10% Off Sitewide! Code: HARVEST Ends: 11/18 Details

  1. Help
Up to 50% Off + 10% Off! Up to 50% Off + 10% Off Sitewide! Code: HARVEST Ends: 11/18 Details

Mapp v. Ohio

Hello, you either have JavaScript turned off or an old version of Adobe's Flash Player. Get the latest Flash player.

Mapp v. Ohio - Page Text Content

FC: Mapp V. Ohio

1: Plaintiff Dollree Mapp Defendant Ohio 03/21/1961 - 06/19/1961

4: Unlawful, or warrantless Search and Seizure.

5: Landmark case which brought about the question, can an officer without consent or a warrant enter a home to search and seize evidence to be used in court?

6: Case origins | Cleveland Ohio May 23, 1957

7: Ohio suburb received information that a suspect in a bombing case, as well as some illegal betting equipment, might be found in the home of Dollree Mapp

8: Brandishing a piece of paper, they broke in the door. Mapp asked to see the “warrant” and took it from an officer, putting it in her dress. The officers struggled with Mapp and took the piece of paper away from her. They handcuffed her for being “belligerent.”

9: Police found neither the bombing suspect nor the betting equipment during their search, but they did discover some pornographic material in a suitcase by Mapp's bed. Mapp said that she had loaned the suitcase to a boarder at one time and that the contents were not her property.

10: Lower Court | 1 to 7 years in Reformatory | Supreme Court | Violates the 4th Amendment

11: Previous cases | Boyd v. United States (1886) | Weeks v. United States (1914) | Wolf v. Colorado (1949)

12: Legal Effects | Search and Seizure of property without warrant or consent is Unconstitutional, and evidence collected is inadmissible in court.

13: Set the precedent for all future cases dealing with the Fourth Amendment. More Regulations established on officers obtaining search warrants. | Case Outcome

14: My Opinion

15: In my own personal opinion I believe the Supreme Court made a wise decision when ruling on this case, by doing so this allows Citizens to feel safe and protected in personal/private matters, as well as preventing corrupt law officials from gaining power by being able to enter homes freely and possibly planting evidence in order to manipulate the outcome of court issues.

Sizes: mini|medium|large|behemoth
Default User
  • By: Brent S.
  • Joined: almost 9 years ago
  • Published Mixbooks: 1
No contributors

About This Mixbook

  • Title: Mapp v. Ohio
  • Theme for Mixbook Scrapbookers
  • Tags: None
  • Published: almost 9 years ago