Preview

Search and Seize Paper

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
742 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Search and Seize Paper
02/17/2012
4.1 Search and Seizure

The most famous search and seizure is Mapp v. Ohio. This case happens back in 1961, March 29 and end on June 19, 1961. Which were an unreasonable searches and seizures what relates on the fourth Amendment. When the police received a tip that Dollree Mapp and her daughter were harboring a suspected bombing fugitive, they immediately went to her house and demanded entrance. Mapp called her attorney and under his advice she refused to give them entry because they did not have a warrant. Later on that day more officers came to her door and demanded that they be allowed to enter her house. After Mapp refused, they opened a door to the house through forced entry. Knock down her door completely. Mapp confronted them and demanded to see the search warrant. The police waved a piece of paper in the air claiming it was the warrant and Mapp grabbed it and put it down her shirt. The police eventually got the "warrant" back from Mapp. Also when the cop took the paper back for the warrant for her Mapp was taking a deep thought on how was that was right for him to not let her see the information about the warrant. Next, Mapp was cuffed her feet and went on to search her entire house for the fugitive. When they reached her basement they found a trunk containing a small collection of pornographic books, pictures, and photographs. Mapp said the trunk was left in the basement by a previous tenant and was not aware of its contents. The officers arrested Mapp for violating an Ohio law which prohibited the possession of obscene material. On her arrest she knows the laws for Ohio but they didn’t even give her time to discuss or tell who use to live in their home before her. No fugitive or any evidence of one was ever found at the house. Nothing but pic what Mapp didn’t have a clue who they belong to. At her trial in the Court room, Mapp was charged based on the evidence that was presented by the police. Mapp's attorney questioned the police about the

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Georgia v. Randolph is a landmark case pertaining to the search of a private resident without a search warrant where one resident gives law enforcement personnel consents to conduct a search and the other member objects. This particular case involved a married couple Scott and Janet Randolph, who were having marriage problems. Janet decided to leave Scott taking their son with her to Canada (Wood 2007 para 1). After being gone for a little over a month she and the child returned to the same residents where Scott had remained. One day shortly after her return, they got into an argument and Scott left the resident with their child in fear that she would take off again.…

    • 394 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Facts: This case raises questions concerning the Fourth Amendment and searches incident to a lawful arrest. On September 13th, 1965, three police officers arrived at Chimel’s residence in Santa Ana, California. They possessed a search warrant, which authorized Chimel’s…

    • 211 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Mapp vs. ohio: The surrounding of the case was the police came in her house try to find a bomb suspect they found the bomb suspect but they also found pornograph pics of her self so she was arrested that day. The supreme court's decision was that when a police officer is searching you or your house they have to specify what they are looking for. The courts decision maid a big change because the cops if they come in your house looking for a gun but they find a knife they cant arrest you for it because they have to specify what they are looking for.…

    • 107 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    On May 23, 1957, police officers in a Cleveland, Ohio suburb received information that a suspect in a bombing case, as well as some illegal betting equipment, might be found in the home of Dollree Mapp,so the police went to her home and she refused their entrance without a warrant, several hours later the police arrive in numbers and force their way in, when asked about their warrant an officer flashed Mapp a piece paper then arrested her before she could read it. The police did. It find the terror suspect but did find a chest containing pornographic materials and pictures which are in violation of an Ohio law of possession of obscene materials, at the trial the warrant was never presented to Mapp or her lawyer and Mapp was found guilty upon charges. They then took the case to the Ohio Supreme Court and claimed the eve deuce was taken illegally and that illegal evidence shouldn't be able to be used in court, the verdict was that the officers took it from the trunk peacefully so it was legal, then Mapp took the case to the Supreme Court claiming that her rights granted to her by the 4th amendment had been violated.…

    • 723 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    California case along with the Wurie v. United States case both helped change police protocol across the nation so that no one else would have their fourth amendment violated. As of today officers who search without a warrant are required to delete seized data that was collected without a search warrant. This ensures that every person gets their proper rights that the constitution ensures. After what happened during the Riley v. California case and how the supreme court created the de facto law that all officers need a warrant to search a phone unless it is urgent no police officer has gone against this law. This is because they know the consequences and it could also tarnish a extremely important case by possibly having to get rid of important information found without a…

    • 529 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Mapp V. Ohio Case Study

    • 272 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Mapp v. Ohio, noteworthy court case of 1961. The US Supreme Court decided that when the state officers attained evidence through illegal searches and seizures might not be admissible into criminal trials. The case was about a Cleveland lady, Dolly Mapp, who was held for having obscene materials. Law enforcement had learned the materials in Dolly Mapp house during their illegal search. When the state convicted, Dolly Mapp appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Her argument was that her constitutional rights was violated under the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, that prohibits unjust searches and seizures. “The U.S. Supreme Court accepted her appeal and consented to her argument. They stated that any illegally obtained evidence should…

    • 272 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Terry Vs. Ohio Case

    • 564 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The most famous case in U.S. history is the Terry v. Ohio . The Terry v. Ohio case raised many questions as to whether or not the search and seizure of Terry violated the Fourth Amendment. The police officials thought they would take action upon themselves into frisking and searching the men for what they could find, not acknowledging the rights of the people. The courts decision was 8-1, meaning that the search done by the officer was reasonable in the Fourth Amendment and the weapons that were taken were used and held against him as evidence. After the Terry case, police are now demanded to search a suspect on reasonable suspicion.…

    • 564 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    case study

    • 306 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Case Signifance: The 4th amendment prohibits the unlawful search and seizure of resident belonging to citizens of the United States of America.…

    • 306 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The second of the Supreme Court Cases to be discussed is Miranda V. Arizona. The importance of this case is that Miranda was interrogated without knowledge of his 5th amendment rights. In this specific case, the police arrested Miranda from his home in order to take him into investigation at the Phoenix police station. While Miranda was put on trial, he was not informed that he had a right to an attorney. From this the officers were able to retrieve a signed written statement from Miranda. Most importantly, this letter stated that Miranda had full knowledge of his legal rights. From the evidence found, Miranda was sentenced to prison for 20 to 30 years. From here the Supreme Court stated that, “...Miranda's constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession…” (Miranda V Arizona).…

    • 507 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    One does not expect to leave their house and have a stranger barge into their home and rummage through their belongings. This is the situation that Petitioner David Fallsbauer found himself in with not a stranger, but a highly esteemed officer of the law, whom unreasonably dissected his possessions. Under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, citizens are protected against the unbridled and unreasonable searches and seizures. One exception is through consent to the search. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (9th Cir. 1973). Petitioner David Fallsbauer can demonstrate through established case law that the consent his mother gave was ambiguous. Because his mother’s consent was ambiguous, the consent was not…

    • 447 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Mapp V. Ohio Case Study

    • 1111 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Mapp v. Ohio is an important case that made history. For the reason it has to do the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment. All evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Federal Constitution is inadmissible in a criminal trial in a state court. Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U. S. 25, overruled insofar as it holds to the contrary. Pp. 367 U. S. 643-660.…

    • 1111 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Roy Olmstead was accused of importing and possessing illegal liquors back in 1927. He was later proved guilty by wiretaps installed in his basement. Olmstead tried saying that his 4th and 5th amendment were violated, but in conclusion his 4th amendment rights were not infringed because mere wiretapping does not qualify under a search or seizure. To be searched means that they would physically have to be there searching for something without a warrant that is. They are allowed to do so with a warrant. The vote behind his rights were 5-4 not in his favor. So he was later detained and arrested by the police. In this court case the officials learned a lot about how they should think, they decided that they should not back down in that sort of situation…

    • 160 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Diagnostic Book Thief

    • 605 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Sometimes in literature, a character’s actions oppose the ideals, values, morals, etc. of his or her society. A character in The Book Thief who opposes his or her society is Rudy Steiner. Of course, there was a purpose for Zusak to make Rudy exactly the way he did.…

    • 605 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Charles Katz Case

    • 513 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Charles Katz v. United States 1967 is a United States Supreme Court case that examined the nature of illegal search and seizure and the right to privacy. This case was argued on October 17, 1967 until its decision date of December 18, 1967. The case was argued under some pretty influential justices; those that include Chief Justice Earl Warren and Thurgood “Mr. Civil Rights” Marshall although he did not vote. This case overturned the previous ruling of Olmstead v. United States back in 1927. This case set a very high precedent in the realms of privacy and immaterial intrusion with technology as a search because phone calls and private phones were becoming part of everyday life. Now the facts of the case are very laid out and clear. Charles…

    • 513 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    This rule gives police officers the ability to seize evidence involved in a crime without a warrant if the evidence is in plain sight. This rule is limited by probable cause which requires police officers to have probable cause and believe the items in plain view are evidence before they seize them. The fourth amendment does prevent unreasonable searches and seizures.…

    • 280 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays