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: *****

D. Character of 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, and photographs.

E. 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 ***** to her ***** without a search warrant. The police set up surveillance of her 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 refused to permit him to enter the house or ***** see appellant. Appellant ***** to see a ***** warrant. ***** police showed her a piece of paper that they claimed was a warrant; appellant grabbed the ***** and placed it in ***** bosom. The officers and appellant struggled over the paper, the ***** subdued her, and the officers handcuffed her. The police then took the Appellant upstairs to her living quarters, w*****e the police executed a general search of her bedroom, her child's *****, ***** living room, the kitchen, and a dinette. This search included closed places such as suitc*****es, dresser-drawers, and a pile of person*****l papers. The police ***** searched the basement of the *****. During ***** course of the widespread search, ***** ***** discovered the material supporting ***** ********** a few documents that were considered obscenity in violation of ***** Rev. Code 2905.34. At trial, ***** State could not produce the search ***** in fact, the likelihood is ***** there ***** no warrant. In addition, the search was executed to recover material linked to a recent bombing, ***** to uncover material ***** to obscenity.

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


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

© 2001–2015   |   Essay on Mapp v. Ohio Case Brief A. Name of Case: Mapp   |   Thesis Paper Examples