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


1 2 3 4 5 6
Copyright Notice

Mapp v. Ohio Case Brief

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

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

C. Year Decided: 1961

D. Character of Action: Appellant ***** 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, ***** photographs.

E. Facts: Police *****ficers received information that a wanted person was hiding in appellant Mapp's home, and 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 build*****g with Appellant's living quarters on the second floor. When more officers arrived, they forcibly entered appellant's home. ***** attorney arrived, but the officers refused to permit him to enter ***** 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 her bosom. The officers and appellant struggled over the paper, the officers subdued her, and the ***** handcuffed *****. The police *****n took the Appellant upstairs to her liv*****g *****, w*****e ***** police executed a general search of her bedroom, her child's *****, the living room, the kitchen, and a dinette. This search included closed places such as suitcases, dresser-drawers, and a pile of personal *****s. ***** police then searched the basement ***** the building. During ***** course of the widespread search, the ***** discovered the material supp*****ting ***** conviction; a few documents that were considered obscenity in violation of Ohio Rev. Code 2905.34. At trial, the State could not produce the search warrant; in 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 ***** to obscenity.

*****. Issues: The ***** was asked to determine whether *****ting evidence obtained as the result ***** an illegal search violated the Fourth, Fifth, *****d Fourteenth Amendments. ***** Court was asked to determine whether the admissibility of illegally seized ***** was a constitutional issue or a matter of evidence law. Specifically, the Court was asked ***** determine if the exclusionary rule established in Weeks v. United States applied to state-court proceedings as a ***** of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court w***** also asked to determine whether 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 not shock the conscience. Finally, the ***** ***** asked ***** determine whether the anti-obscenity provisions ***** Ohio. Rev. Code 2905.34 violated the Fourteenth ***** of the Constitution.

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

. . . . [END OF RESEARCH PAPER PREVIEW]

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

© 2001–2017   |   Essays about Mapp v. Ohio Case Brief A. Name of Case: Mapp   |   Book Report Examples