Mapp v. Ohio Case Brief
1. Mapp v. Ohio, 170 Ohio St. 427, 166 N. E. 2d 387, reversed.
2. Dollree Mapp was convicted on one count in the Ohio State Court for the possession of obscene material. The possession of obscene material was illegal in Ohio and the time of the search. There was dispute of whether or not the search was permitted by search warrant. She was eventually found guilty of by the State of Ohio because the state said, “even if the search were made without authority, otherwise unreasonably, it is not prevented from using the unconstitutionally seized evidence at trial”. Mapp’s appeal to the Supreme Court was granted certiorari.
3. Mapp appealed her case to the Supreme Court of appeals on three constitutional grounds.
I. Expectation of privacy
II. Unlawful search and seizures
III. Illegally obtained evidence
4. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mapp, ruling that the evidence found and used to convict the appellant was obtain unconstitutionally and therefore found inadmissible in court,
5. Court Reasoning:
I. Expectation of privacy
Any actions, material, property, etc. that a person has inside of his/ her home and not in the public eye is considered private. Therefor government officials are not allowed to invade ones privacy with the appropriate permission. The police had no right to any material inside the discovered chest with obscene material.
II. Unlawful search and Seizures
The court found that the Cleveland police violated the appellant’s fourth amendment right that secures the protections against illegal search and seizures. Mapp claimed that that the authorities forces their way into the house without her permission or without presenting her with a search warrant. There was no search warrant presented to any of the courts, therefore there was no proof to legal entry or the proceeding search.
III. Illegally obtained evidence
The court ruled that the appellant’s fourth amendment right was violated by the Cleveland police. Since
2. Dollree Mapp was convicted on one count in the Ohio State Court for the possession of obscene material. The possession of obscene material was illegal in Ohio and the time of the search. There was dispute of whether or not the search was permitted by search warrant. She was eventually found guilty of by the State of Ohio because the state said, “even if the search were made without authority, otherwise unreasonably, it is not prevented from using the unconstitutionally seized evidence at trial”. Mapp’s appeal to the Supreme Court was granted certiorari.
3. Mapp appealed her case to the Supreme Court of appeals on three constitutional grounds.
I. Expectation of privacy
II. Unlawful search and seizures
III. Illegally obtained evidence
4. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mapp, ruling that the evidence found and used to convict the appellant was obtain unconstitutionally and therefore found inadmissible in court,
5. Court Reasoning:
I. Expectation of privacy
Any actions, material, property, etc. that a person has inside of his/ her home and not in the public eye is considered private. Therefor government officials are not allowed to invade ones privacy with the appropriate permission. The police had no right to any material inside the discovered chest with obscene material.
II. Unlawful search and Seizures
The court found that the Cleveland police violated the appellant’s fourth amendment right that secures the protections against illegal search and seizures. Mapp claimed that that the authorities forces their way into the house without her permission or without presenting her with a search warrant. There was no search warrant presented to any of the courts, therefore there was no proof to legal entry or the proceeding search.
III. Illegally obtained evidence
The court ruled that the appellant’s fourth amendment right was violated by the Cleveland police. Since