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


Copyright Notice

Mapp v. Ohio Case Brief

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

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

C. Year Decided: 1961

D. Character of Action: Appellant Mapp sought review of the decision of the Ohio

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

E. 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 ***** to her ***** 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, they forcibly entered appellant's home. Appellant's attorney *****, but the officers refused to permit him to enter the house or to see appellant. Appellant demanded to ***** a search warrant. ***** police showed her a piece of paper ***** they claimed ***** a *****; appellant grabbed the paper and placed it in her bosom. The officers and appellant struggled over the paper, the officers subdued her, and the officers handcuffed her. The ***** ********** *****ok the Appellant upstairs to her living *****, w*****e 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 of the building. During ***** course of the widespread search, the ***** discovered the material supp*****ting *****'s *****; a few documents that were considered obscenity in violation of Ohio Rev. Code 2905.34. At trial, ***** State could not produce the search warrant; ***** fact, ***** likelihood is that there was no warrant. In addition, the search ***** executed to recover material linked to a recent bombing, not to uncover m*****terial ***** ***** obscenity.

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

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

. . . . [END OF DISSERTATION PREVIEW]

Download complete paper (and others like it)    |    Order a brand new, custom paper

Other topics that might interest you:

© 2001–2016   |   Thesis Paper about Mapp v. Ohio Case Brief A. Name of Case: Mapp   |   Dissertations Sample