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


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 the Ohio

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

*****. Facts: Police *****ficers 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 police to her home 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 ***** to permit him to enter the house or to see appellant. Appellant ***** to see a ***** warrant. The police showed her 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 *****. The police then took the Appellant upstairs to her liv*****g *****, where the police executed a general search of her bedroom, her child's bedroom, ***** living room, the kitchen, and a dinette. This search included closed places such as suitcases, dresser-drawers, and a pile of person*****l papers. The police then searched the basement ***** the building. During the course of the widespread search, the police discovered the material supp*****ting ***** conviction; a few documents that were considered obscenity in violation of ***** Rev. Code 2905.34. At trial, ***** State could not produce the ***** ***** in fact, ***** likelihood is that there was no warrant. In addition, the search was ***** to recover material linked to a recent bombing, ***** to uncover m*****terial ***** ***** obscenity.

F. Issues: The ***** was asked to determine whether admitting evidence obtained as the result ***** an illegal ***** violated the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court ***** *****ked 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. ***** Court ***** also asked to determine whe*****r the manner in which such evidence was obtained affected the admissibility of such evidence, or whe*****r an illegal search ***** did not shock the conscience was somehow better than an ***** search that did not shock ***** conscience. Finally, the Court ***** asked ***** determine whether the *****ti-obscenity provisions of Ohio. Rev. Code 2905.34 violated the Fourteenth ***** of the Constitution.

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

. . . . [END OF DISSERTATION PREVIEW]

Purchase a full, non-asterisked paper below    |    Pay for a unique, custom-written paper

100% Complete, Premium Essays & Thesis Papers for Sale

© 2001–2014   |   Book Reports on Mapp v. Ohio Case Brief A. Name of Case: Mapp   |   Dissertations Examples