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

Copyright Notice

Mapp v. Ohio Case Brief

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

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

C. Year Decided: *****

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 ***** lewd and lascivious books, pictures, ***** 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 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, they forcibly entered appellant's home. Appellant's attorney *****, but the officers ***** to permit him to enter the house or to see appellant. Appellant demanded to ***** a search warrant. The police showed her a piece of paper ***** *****y claimed was a *****; appellant grabbed the ***** and placed it in ***** bosom. The officers and appellant struggled over the paper, the officers subdued her, and the officers handcuffed *****. The police then took the ***** upstairs to her liv*****g 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 suitc*****es, dresser-drawers, and a pile of person*****l papers. The police then searched the basement ***** the *****. During ***** course of the widespread search, ***** police disc*****ed the material supporting ***** ********** a few documents that were considered obscenity in violation of ***** Rev. ***** 2905.34. At trial, the State could not produce the search warrant; in fact, ***** likelihood is that there was no warrant. In addition, the search ***** executed to recover material linked to a recent bombing, ***** to uncover m*****terial linked ***** obscenity.

F. 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 w***** asked ***** determine *****he*****r the admissibility of illegally seized ***** was a constitution*****l issue or a matter of evidence law. Specifically, the Court was asked to determine if ***** exclusionary rule established in Weeks v. United States applied to state-court proceedings as a result of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court w***** also asked to determine whet***** the manner in which such evidence was obtained affected the admissibility of such *****, or ********** an illegal ***** that did not shock the conscience was somehow better than an illegal search ***** did ***** shock ***** conscience. Finally, the Court was asked to determine whether the *****ti-obscenity provisions of Ohio. *****. 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 ********** conviction ***** un*****ful based on ***** Fourth and Fourteenth ***** ***** ***** seizure issues. The Court


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

© 2001–2015   |   Essay about Mapp v. Ohio Case Brief A. Name of Case: Mapp   |   Book Report Model