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: *****

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

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

*****. Facts: Police officers 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 attorney and refused to admit the police to her ***** without a search warrant. The police 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 ***** see appellant. Appellant demanded to see a ***** warrant. The police showed her a piece of paper ***** they claimed was a *****; 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 ********** took the ***** upstairs to her living quarters, w*****e the police executed a general search of her bedroom, her child's bedroom, ***** living room, the kitchen, and a dinette. This se*****rch included closed places such as suitcases, dresser-drawers, and a pile of personal papers. The police then searched the basement ***** the *****. During the course of the widespread search, ***** ***** disc*****ed the material supp*****ting *****'s conviction; a few documents that were considered obscenity in violation of Ohio Rev. ***** 2905.34. At trial, the State could not produce the ***** warrant; ***** fact, the likelihood is that there ***** no warrant. In addition, the search was ***** to recover material linked to a recent bombing, not to uncover m*****terial ***** ***** obscenity.

F. Issues: The Court was asked to determine whether *****ting evidence obtained as the result ***** an illegal search violated the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court was asked ***** determine ***** ***** admissibility of illegally seized ***** was a constitutional issue or a m*****tter 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 ***** Amendment. The Court was also asked to determine whether the manner in which such evidence was obtained affected the admissibility of such *****, or whether an illegal ***** ***** did not shock the conscience was somehow better than an illegal search that did ***** shock ***** conscience. Finally, the ***** ***** asked ***** determine whe*****r the anti-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 appellant's conviction was unlawful based on the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment ***** ***** seizure **********. ***** Court


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

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