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 v. Ohio

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

C. Year Decided: 1961

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

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

E. Facts: Police *****ficers 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 ***** 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, *****y forcibly entered appellant's home. ***** attorney *****, but the officers ***** to permit him to enter ***** house or to see appellant. Appellant demanded to ***** a search warrant. The police showed her a piece of paper ***** they 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 ***** handcuffed *****. The police then *****ok the ***** upstairs to her living *****, w*****e ***** police executed a general search of her bedroom, her child's bedroom, the living room, ***** kitchen, and a dinette. This se*****rch included closed places such as suitcases, dresser-drawers, and a pile of person*****l *****s. The police ***** searched the basement of the building. During the course of the widespread search, the ***** discovered the material supporting appellant's ********** a few documents that were considered obscenity in violation of ***** Rev. Code 2905.34. At trial, the State could not produce the search warrant; in fact, the likelihood is ***** there was no warrant. In addition, the search was executed to recover material linked to a recent bombing, not to uncover m*****terial linked to obscenity.

*****. Issues: The Court was asked to determine whether *****ting evidence obtained as the result of an illegal ***** violated the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court was asked to determine whether the admissibility of illegally seized evidence was a constitutional issue or a matter 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 ***** ***** the ***** Amendment. ***** Court w***** 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 ***** search that did ***** shock ***** conscience. Finally, the ***** ***** asked ***** determine whe*****r the ********** provisions of Ohio. Rev. Code 2905.34 violated the Fourteenth Amendment ***** ***** Constitution.

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

. . . . [END OF RESEARCH PAPER PREVIEW]

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

© 2001–2017   |   Thesis Paper on Mapp v. Ohio Case Brief A. Name of Case: Mapp   |   Book Report Models