Mapp vs Ohio(Court Case)
Historical Background: • In the period from 1961 to 1969, the Warren Court examined every aspect of the criminal justice system in the United States, using the 14th Amendment to extend constitutional protections to all courts in every State. • The process above became known as “nationalization” of the Bill of Rights. • During 1961-1969, cases concerning the right to legal counsel, confessions, searches, and the treatment of juvenile criminals all appeared on the Court’s docket. o Docket: A calendar of the cases awaitinga ction in a court. A brief entry of the court proceedingsin a legal case. The book containing such entries. • Mapp Vs. Ohio: The first of several significant cases in which it reevaluated the role of the 14th Amendment as it applied to State judicial systems.
Constitutional Issues: • The question for the case involved the 4th Amendment: Protection against “unreasonable searches and seizures” and the “nationalization” of the Bill of Rights under the 14th Amendment.
Arguments: • For Mapp: o Police searched Mapp’s property without a warrant. o The incriminating evidence found during the search should have been thrown out of court and her conviction overturned. o If the 4th Amendment did not limit the prerogatives of police on the local and State level, local law enforcement would have a mandate to search wherever, whenever, and whomever they pleased. ▪ Prerogative: An exclusive right or privilege held by a person or group, especially hereditary or official right. The exclusive right and power to command, decide, rule, or judge. o Exclusionary rule that applied in federal courts should also be applied to State court proceedings. • For the State of Ohio: o “Even if the search was made without proper authority, the State was not prevented from using the evidence seized because ‘the Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid the admission of
Constitutional Issues: • The question for the case involved the 4th Amendment: Protection against “unreasonable searches and seizures” and the “nationalization” of the Bill of Rights under the 14th Amendment.
Arguments: • For Mapp: o Police searched Mapp’s property without a warrant. o The incriminating evidence found during the search should have been thrown out of court and her conviction overturned. o If the 4th Amendment did not limit the prerogatives of police on the local and State level, local law enforcement would have a mandate to search wherever, whenever, and whomever they pleased. ▪ Prerogative: An exclusive right or privilege held by a person or group, especially hereditary or official right. The exclusive right and power to command, decide, rule, or judge. o Exclusionary rule that applied in federal courts should also be applied to State court proceedings. • For the State of Ohio: o “Even if the search was made without proper authority, the State was not prevented from using the evidence seized because ‘the Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid the admission of