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

1 2
Copyright Notice

Mapp v. Ohio Case Brief

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

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

C. Year Decided: *****

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

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

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

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

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


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

Other topics that might interest you:

© 2001–2016   |   Dissertations on Mapp v. Ohio Case Brief A. Name of Case: Mapp   |   Essays Models