Essay - Mapp v. Ohio Case Brief A. Name of Case: Mapp...

1 2
Copyright Notice

Mapp v. Ohio Case Brief

*****. Name of *****: Mapp *****. Ohio

B. Citation: 367 U.S. 643 (1961)

C. Year Decided: 1961

D. Character ***** Action: Appellant ***** sought review of the decision of ***** Ohio

Supreme Court, which affirmed her conviction under ***** Rev. Code 2905.34, for possession of lewd and lascivious books, pictures, ***** photographs.

*****. Facts: Police officers received information that a wanted person was hiding in appellant Mapp's home, and three police officers demanded entrance to appellant's home. Appellant contacted her at*****rney and refused to admit the ***** to her ***** without a search warrant. The police set up surveillance of ***** home; a duplex-style build*****g with Appellant's living quarters on the second floor. When more officers arrived, *****y forcibly entered appellant's home. ***** attorney *****, but the officers refused to permit him to enter the house or ***** see appellant. Appellant ***** to ***** a search warrant. The police showed her a piece of paper ***** ********** claimed ***** a warrant; appellant grabbed the paper and placed it in ***** bosom. The officers and appellant struggled over the *****, the officers subdued her, and the officers handcuffed her. The police then *****ok the Appellant upstairs to her liv*****g *****, where ***** police executed a general search of her bedroom, her child's *****, the living room, ***** kitchen, and a dinette. This se*****rch included closed places such as suitc*****es, dresser-drawers, and a pile ***** person*****l papers. ***** police ***** searched the basement of the building. During the course of the widespread search, ***** ***** discovered the material supp*****ting *****'s conviction; a few documents that were considered obscenity in violation of Ohio Rev. Code 2905.34. At trial, the State could not produce the search ***** in fact, ***** likelihood is that there was no warrant. In addition, the search ***** ***** to recover material linked to a recent bombing, ***** to uncover material ***** ***** obscenity.

F. Issues: The Court was asked to determine whether admitting evidence obtained as the result ***** an illegal search violated the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. ***** Court w***** asked ***** determine ***** the admissibility of illegally seized evidence *****as a constitutional issue or a m*****tter of evidence law. Specifically, the Court was asked to determine if ***** exclusionary rule established in Weeks v. United *****s applied to state-court proceedings as a result ***** the ***** Amendment. The Court ***** also asked to determine whether the manner in which such evidence was obtained affected the ***** of such *****, or ***** an illegal ***** that did not shock ***** conscience was somehow better than an illegal search that did not shock the conscience. Finally, the ***** ***** asked ***** determine whe*****r the anti-obscenity provisions ***** Ohio. *****. Code 2905.34 violated the Fourteenth ***** of the Constitution.

*****. Decision: The Court reversed and remanded ***** decision of the Ohio Supreme Court. The Court determined that appellant's conviction was unlawful based on ***** Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment search and seizure *****s. ***** Court


Download full paper (and others like it)    |    Order a one-of-a-kind, custom paper

Other topics that might interest you:

© 2001–2016   |   Term Paper about Mapp v. Ohio Case Brief A. Name of Case: Mapp   |   Book Reports Models