Dollree Mapp Case Study
It all started in Cleveland, Ohio on May 23, 1957 where Dollree Mapp resided. Cleveland police received a tip that a person wanted in a recent bombing was hiding out in Mapp’s house. The police knocked on Mapp’s door and demanded her to let them in to search the house. Mapp refused and told the police they couldn’t come in unless they had obtained a search warrant. The police temporarily backed off but stayed outside her house, making sure that if the criminal was inside they wouldn’t escape.
After hours of surveillance, more police showed up and opened one of Mapp’s doors and went inside. Mapp went up to them and again asked to see a search warrant. The police quickly showed her a piece of paper, but when Mapp tried to grab it to read it the …show more content…
police handcuffed her for being hostile and aggressive.
The police searched throughout her house and in the basement.
There was no sign of the criminal they were looking for but they did find a trunk containing “lewd and lascivious” books and pictures, that of which violated Ohio law at the time and led to Mapp’s arrest. Mapp decided to take the situation to court.
Mapp argued that the police had no warrant to be able to access and search her property and she believed that all evidence found should be discarded since it violated the 4th amendment, which states that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”
And on the other hand, the state of Ohio said that the Bill of Rights only limits the National Government, not state power, and that even though the Bill of Rights were instituted into state law through the “Due Process Clause” in the 14th amendment, it doesn’t guarantee 4th amendment protections.
When Mapp’s conviction was upheld in an Ohio court, Mapp took her case to the Supreme Court of the United States, who in essence had to decide if evidence brought forward to the court that was obtained in violation of the 4th amendment could be acceptable in state
courts.
On June 19, 1961, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 vote favoring Mapp, decided that Mapp was to be relieved of all convictions and that “all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is inadmissible in a state court,” Justice Tom Clark declared.
The result of Mapp v. Ohio established a basis for all situations involving searches and seizures. It had a major effect on police officers, who had to adjust their routines for going about searching homes, and ordinary citizens who value their constitutional rights.
After hours of surveillance, more police showed up and opened one of Mapp’s doors and went inside. Mapp went up to them and again asked to see a search warrant. The police quickly showed her a piece of paper, but when Mapp tried to grab it to read it the …show more content…
police handcuffed her for being hostile and aggressive.
The police searched throughout her house and in the basement.
There was no sign of the criminal they were looking for but they did find a trunk containing “lewd and lascivious” books and pictures, that of which violated Ohio law at the time and led to Mapp’s arrest. Mapp decided to take the situation to court.
Mapp argued that the police had no warrant to be able to access and search her property and she believed that all evidence found should be discarded since it violated the 4th amendment, which states that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”
And on the other hand, the state of Ohio said that the Bill of Rights only limits the National Government, not state power, and that even though the Bill of Rights were instituted into state law through the “Due Process Clause” in the 14th amendment, it doesn’t guarantee 4th amendment protections.
When Mapp’s conviction was upheld in an Ohio court, Mapp took her case to the Supreme Court of the United States, who in essence had to decide if evidence brought forward to the court that was obtained in violation of the 4th amendment could be acceptable in state
courts.
On June 19, 1961, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 vote favoring Mapp, decided that Mapp was to be relieved of all convictions and that “all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is inadmissible in a state court,” Justice Tom Clark declared.
The result of Mapp v. Ohio established a basis for all situations involving searches and seizures. It had a major effect on police officers, who had to adjust their routines for going about searching homes, and ordinary citizens who value their constitutional rights.