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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Copyright Notice

Mapp v. Ohio Case Brief

A. Name of *****: Mapp v. Ohio

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

C. Year Decided: 1961

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

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

E. Facts: Police officers received information that a wanted person was hiding in appellant *****'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 building with Appell*****nt's living quarters on the second floor. When more officers arrived, they forcibly entered appellant's home. Appellant's attorney arrived, but the officers refused to permit him to enter ***** house or ***** see appellant. Appellant demanded to see a search warrant. The police showed her a piece of paper ***** they claimed ***** a warrant; appellant grabbed the paper and placed it in her bosom. The officers and appellant struggled over the paper, the officers subdued her, and the ***** handcuffed her. The ***** then took the ***** upstairs to her living *****, w*****e the 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 suitcases, dresser-drawers, and a pile ***** personal papers. ***** police then searched the basement of the *****. During ***** course of the widespread search, the ***** discovered the material supporting ***** *****; a few documents that were considered obscenity in violation of ***** Rev. ***** 2905.34. At trial, ***** State could not produce the ***** ***** ***** fact, the likelihood is ***** there was no warrant. In addition, the search was ***** to recover material linked to a recent bombing, not to uncover material linked ***** obscenity.

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

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


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

© 2001–2017   |   Book Report on Mapp v. Ohio Case Brief A. Name of Case: Mapp   |   Term Papers Sample