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


Copyright Notice

Mapp v. Ohio Case Brief

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

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

C. Year Decided: *****

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

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

E. Facts: Police *****ficers received information that a wanted person was hiding in appellant Mapp's home, and three police officers dem*****ed entrance to appellant's home. Appellant contacted her at*****rney and refused to admit the police to her home without a search warrant. The ***** set up surveillance of her home; a duplex-style building with Appellant's living quarters on the second floor. When more officers arrived, they forcibly entered appellant's home. ***** attorney arrived, but the officers ***** to permit him to enter the house or to see appellant. Appellant demanded to see a se*****rch warrant. The police showed ***** a piece of paper that ********** claimed ***** a warrant; appellant grabbed the paper and placed it in her bosom. The officers and appellant struggled over the paper, the ***** subdued her, and the officers handcuffed her. The police then took the ***** upstairs to her liv*****g quarters, w*****e ***** police executed a general search of her bedroom, her child's *****, the living room, ***** kitchen, and a dinette. This search included closed places such as suitcases, dresser-drawers, and a pile of person*****l **********. ***** police ***** searched the basement of the *****. During ***** course of the widespread search, the ***** discovered the material supp*****ting ***** *****; a few documents that were considered obscenity in violation of ***** Rev. Code 2905.34. At trial, the State could not produce the search ***** ***** 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 ***** ***** obscenity.

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

*****. 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 ***** search and seizure *****s. The Court

. . . . [END OF TERM PAPER PREVIEW]

Download entire paper (and others like it)    |    Order a brand new, customized paper

© 2001–2016   |   Book Report about Mapp v. Ohio Case Brief A. Name of Case: Mapp   |   Book Reports Example