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

Mapp v. Ohio Case Brief

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

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

C. Year Decided: *****

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.

*****. Facts: Police *****ficers received information that a wanted person was hiding in appellant ********** home, and three police officers demanded 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 building with Appellant's living quarters on the second floor. When more officers arrived, they forcibly entered appellant's home. ***** ***** arrived, but the officers refused to permit him to enter ***** house or ***** see appellant. Appellant demanded to ***** a ***** w*****rrant. ***** police showed her a piece of paper that they claimed was a warrant; appellant grabbed the ***** and placed it in her bosom. The officers and appellant struggled over the paper, the ***** subdued her, and the officers handcuffed her. The ***** then *****ok the ***** upstairs to her living *****, where the police executed a general search of her bedroom, her child's bedroom, the living room, the kitchen, and a dinette. This search included closed places such as suitcases, dresser-drawers, and a pile ***** personal *****s. ***** police then searched the basement of the *****. During the course of the widespread search, ***** police disc*****ed the material supporting ***** ********** a few documents that were considered obscenity in violation of Ohio Rev. ***** 2905.34. At trial, the State could not produce the ***** ***** ***** fact, ***** likelihood is ***** there ***** no warrant. In addition, the search was ***** to recover material linked to a recent bombing, not to uncover material linked to obscenity.

*****. Issues: The Court was asked to determine whether *****ting evidence obtained as the result of an illegal search violated the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. ***** Court w***** asked ***** determine *****he*****r the admissibility of illegally seized evidence was a constitutional issue or a m*****tter of ***** law. Specifically, the Court was asked to determine if the exclusionary rule established in Weeks v. United States applied ***** 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 ***** of such evidence, or whe*****r an illegal search that did not shock the conscience was somehow better than an illegal search ***** did not shock ***** conscience. Finally, the ***** ***** asked to determine whether the ********** provisions ***** Ohio. Rev. Code 2905.34 violated the Fourteenth ***** of the 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 and seizure **********. The Court