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

*****. 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 ***** *****

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

*****. Facts: Police officers received in*****mation that a wanted person was hiding in appellant Mapp's home, ***** three police officers demanded 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 ***** home; a duplex-style building with Appell*****nt's living quarters on the second floor. When more officers arrived, *****y forcibly entered appellant's home. Appellant's attorney *****, but the officers ***** to permit him to enter ***** house or to see appellant. Appellant ***** to see a search warrant. ***** police showed her a piece of paper that they claimed was a *****; appellant grabbed the ***** and placed it in her bosom. The officers and appellant struggled over the paper, the ***** subdued her, and the officers handcuffed *****. The police then took the ***** upstairs to her liv*****g *****, where the police executed a general search of her bedroom, her child's *****, ***** living room, the kitchen, and a dinette. This se*****rch included closed places such as suitcases, dresser-drawers, and a pile ***** person*****l papers. ***** police then searched the basement of the building. During ***** course of the widespread search, the police discovered the material supporting ***** conviction; a few documents that were considered obscenity in violation of Ohio Rev. ***** 2905.34. At trial, the State could not produce the search warrant; ***** fact, ***** likelihood is ***** there ***** no warrant. In addition, the search was executed to recover material linked to a recent bombing, ***** 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, *****d Fourteenth Amendments. The Court w***** asked to determine ***** the admissibility of illegally seized ***** was a constitution*****l 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 ***** state-court proceedings as a result ***** the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court was also asked to determine whether the manner in which such evidence was obtained affected the admissibility of such *****, or ***** an illegal search that did not shock ***** conscience was somehow better than an illegal 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. The Court determined that appellant's conviction ***** unlawful based on the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment search and seizure issues. The Court


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

© 2001–2017   |   Book Reports about Mapp v. Ohio Case Brief A. Name of Case: Mapp   |   Book Reports Model