The case of Mapp vs. Ohio is one of the most important Supreme Court decisions of the last century. Until this decision, the rights against illegal search and seizure had no method to be enforced. Up until this time, previous cases at set precedents provided little or no protection from illegal searches and seizures for the accused facing state prosecution. On May 23, 1957, Miss Doll ree Mapp heard a knocking at her door (170 Ohio Street).
When she asked who it was, three men identified themselves as Cleveland police officers.
The officers stated that they believed a fugitive was hiding in her home. Miss Mapp told the officers that there was no one else in her home. They asked her for entrance. Miss Mapp phoned her attorney, and was instructed not to let the police into her home. The police grudgingly left, and set up surveillance around the home. Around three hours later, the police officers returned to Miss Mapp’s residence, and was met by four additional officers as well.
The officers gave Miss Mapp little time to respond to their presence, and almost immediately forced entry through several of the entrances to Miss Mapp’s home. Miss Mapp’s attorney arrived on the scene to provide council, but was met by the police instead. The police held him outside, preventing him from meeting with his client. When Miss Mapp was confronted by the officers, she demanded to see the search warrant. An officer held up a piece of paper, which is believed to be a fake warrant.
The Essay on Citizen Complaint Officers Complaints Police
Citizen Complaints and Problems Officers Examining Officer Behavior Chapter thirteen talks about the police being a public institution, that relies on a grant of legitimacy rooted in public trust and confidence. Complaints that become news events can wear away confidence among an even wider audience. This chapter provides the unique opportunity to combine citizen complaint data with actual ...
Miss Mapp grabbed the paper, and put it down her blouse. The police then forcibly tried to retrieve the ‘warrant’ from Miss Mapp’s blouse. They handcuffed her for being ‘belligerent’. The police then proceeded to search every room in the entire house. In the basement, they found a trunk, which they opened.
Inside they found materials that they considered to be “obscene.” They retrieved all the materials, and charged her with the possession of obscene material (Ohio Rev. Code, 2905. 34: ‘No person shall knowingly… have in his possession or under his control an obscene, lewd, or lascivious book, magazine, pamphlet, paper, writing, advertisement, circular, print, picture…
or drawing… of an indecent or immoral nature… Whoever violates this section shall be fined not less than two hundred nor more than two thousand dollars or imprisoned not less than one nor more than seven years, or both.’ ), and took her into custody. Miss Mapp was indicted on the charge, and went to trial. During her trial, no search warrant was ever produced.
The judge stated that there was considerable doubt as to whether there ever was a warrant in the first place. Even so, the evidence collected illegally was presented during the case. As reasoning, the case of Wolf vs. Colorado was cited, which stated that when the accused is being tried in a state court, he or she does not have the protection of the exclusionary rule, which protects against illegal search and seizure (fourth amendment ‘The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.’ ), which was already provided for federal cases. The fourteenth amendment (Section 1.
‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’ ) allows other amendments to be applied to the states through the process of selective incorporation. The due process clauses in the constitution had been applied to the states via selective incorporation. However, the exclusionary rule had not been selectively incorporated. This meant that while a citizen had rights against illegal search and seizure, there was no way to enforce these rights, or to punish those who broke them.
The Term Paper on The Exclusionary Rule Court Evidence Schmalleger
... decision that the officers were acting against the Fourth Amendment's guarantee that the exclusionary rule should be applicable to the States: .".. nor shall any State ... opened and the policemen commenced their illegal search in the house. Miss Mapp's lawyer arrived shortly after but the ... house (Case 1). Miss Mapp continued to protest this illegal act and demanded to see the search warrant. One of ...
In no small part, due to the illegally obtained evidence, Miss Mapp was convicted on the charge and was held over to be sentenced. Miss Mapp and her attorney appealed the decision. Upon making its way to the Supreme Court, many important decisions were made. First, the court showed that the fourth amendment right of privacy is enforceable for the states through the due process clause that had already been selectively incorporated by the fourteenth amendment. They then went on to say that therefore the exclusionary rule should be enforceable as well. The reasoning behind this is that without the exclusionary rule, saying the fourth amendment is enforceable would simply be words, without any true way of making it so.
This was a direct reversal of the decision made in Wolf vs. Colorado. The Supreme Court went on to say that without allowing the exclusionary rule for the states, state prosecutors would be encouraged to violate the rights of citizens. Due to these insights, the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Ohio court, meaning Miss Mapp would have to be re-tried without the illegally seized evidence. This decision has changed many of the ways cases are handled today. Many of the abuses prosecutors used have been rendered invalid.
The Term Paper on Legal Evolution Of The Exclusionary Rule
... that from then onwards, the exclusionary rule shall apply to all states as prescribed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The court's ruling of the Mapp case ... Weddle H. Garry. (1999). A Summary of U. S. Supreme Court Decisions for the Criminal Justice Community. NY. Looseleaf Law Publications Inc. ...
For example, under the old system, a federal prosecutor could prepare a case illegally, then simply hand it to the state for the actual hearing to avoid having his illegally gained evidence seized. There were also problems with certain states having protections similar to the exclusionary rule in their state constitutions. This now meant that citizens had different rights depending on what state they lived in. This allowed another way for prosecutors to abuse the system. They could attempt to get cases to be heard in states which did not have an exclusionary rule adopted. By applying the federal exclusionary rule to all the states, all citizens would be equally protected.
While a controversial decision at the time, the creation of the exclusionary rule is now one of the backbones of the accused rights in American society. As a review, Mapp’s rights were clearly violated by the Police department and by the State of Ohio. Had it not been for the Supreme Court to enforce her constitutional rights, her conviction would have gone unjust. Theres many arguments between the prosecutors, police, and defense about the Mapps case. Views such as ‘how is the police department supposed to stop crime if they cant search it out and find it with the disability the fourth amendment brings to them’. How can defense at tourneys defend subjects / victims if they have no privacy due to the lack of support on the fourth amendment.
The Mapps case is a perfect example of how the Supreme Court impacts our society.
