What Are The Advantages Of The 4th Amendment
The 4th Amendment and Mapp v. Ohio
Neva S.Paich
DeVry University
Professor Dunn
November 10, 2012
The 4th Amendment to the Constitution was given to us for our own protection, it is a right we have to secure us against something called “unreasonable search and seizures” by the government. It limits and gives certain procedures so that the government cannot abuse their powers. The 4th Amendment makes sure that government officials do their jobs as they should, abiding by certain procedures that are describe on how government officials such as police officer’s or sheriff’s, pretty much all law enforcement can go forth with the search and seizure process (Wrightman ,Nietzel, & Fortune, 1994, p. 59-60). The 4th Amendment to the Constitution was intended to prevent bodies of the government from frightening citizens and intimidation. It thus provides that searching and seizing one’s premises must be done after the police obtain a warrant from a judge. The warrant must be legal, dated, actually signed by a judge, state the reason for the search, specify the exact location and exact address, and most off all what the police …show more content…
expect to find on the premises ( such as, drugs, arms, and or anything else which may be illegal or stolen) (Wrightman, Nietzel, & Fortune, 1994, p. 60). A fantastic case and actually the land mark case that has fundamentally changed the search and seizure laws and influenced due process protections of the accused since 1961, is the case know as Mapp vs. Ohio. The Mapp Case took place in 1961 and began when police felt that a citizen named Dolree Mapp was harboring a fugitive or some type of gambling materials in her home. Police came to Ms. Mapp’s Home to ask for consent to search her home, she sent them away after speaking with her attorney, whose advised her not to deal with them or give them access since they did not have a warrant.
Meanwhile, Ms, Mapp’s attorney did arrive at her home, but was prevented from entering it by police officer’s. Officer’s presented something to Ms. Mapp which they said was a warrant upon which she proceeded to let them in. In actuality the handed her piece of paper that was not a warrant, they lied to her in order to enter the premises. Upon searching her home they found nothing except some old magazines in a trunk in her basement which they said were of an obscene nature so they took her and convicted her for possession of obscene materials (Wrightman, Nietzel, & Fortune, 1994, p.60). Ms.
Mapp Appealed of course on grounds that the police obtained the evidence illegally, due to them having no warrant and therefore illegally obtaining evidence, which could not be used and admitted in court. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with Ms. Mapp and agreed that illegally obtained evidence should be excluded from court according to the provisions of the Exclusionary Rule. Which is part of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and was adopted in 1914, it states that “if police obtain evidence illegally, the remedy was to make such evidence inadmissible in court”. The Mapp case made the “Exclusionary Rule binding in all states, in this way it provides remedial measures to every suspect whose case may involve evidence obtained in an illegal search and seizure by police (Wrightman, Nietzel, & Fortune, 1994, p.
60). In my opinion I feel that the police did a horrific thing to Ms. Mapp, It was a violation not only of her right’s, but I feel they violated her as a human being, that is at least how I would feel. They decide to go ahead and use their power apparently thinking this woman had no mind of her own. They obviously thought her as being so ignorant or stupid that she would not know the difference between a random piece of paper and legal document. I say more power to her for actually fighting back and showing them she was neither stupid nor afraid of standing up to them, more power to her for doing what she did for the rest of us. If not for her we might not have these laws imposed that we so obviously need.
References Wrightman, Neitzel, and Fortune (1994). After Arrest: Law, the courts and post- arrest Procedures: The Courts in Our Criminal Justice System. Kim Davies, Sarah Holle, & Kathleen Glidden. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Strattford Publishing, 2003.
Neva S.Paich
DeVry University
Professor Dunn
November 10, 2012
The 4th Amendment to the Constitution was given to us for our own protection, it is a right we have to secure us against something called “unreasonable search and seizures” by the government. It limits and gives certain procedures so that the government cannot abuse their powers. The 4th Amendment makes sure that government officials do their jobs as they should, abiding by certain procedures that are describe on how government officials such as police officer’s or sheriff’s, pretty much all law enforcement can go forth with the search and seizure process (Wrightman ,Nietzel, & Fortune, 1994, p. 59-60). The 4th Amendment to the Constitution was intended to prevent bodies of the government from frightening citizens and intimidation. It thus provides that searching and seizing one’s premises must be done after the police obtain a warrant from a judge. The warrant must be legal, dated, actually signed by a judge, state the reason for the search, specify the exact location and exact address, and most off all what the police …show more content…
expect to find on the premises ( such as, drugs, arms, and or anything else which may be illegal or stolen) (Wrightman, Nietzel, & Fortune, 1994, p. 60). A fantastic case and actually the land mark case that has fundamentally changed the search and seizure laws and influenced due process protections of the accused since 1961, is the case know as Mapp vs. Ohio. The Mapp Case took place in 1961 and began when police felt that a citizen named Dolree Mapp was harboring a fugitive or some type of gambling materials in her home. Police came to Ms. Mapp’s Home to ask for consent to search her home, she sent them away after speaking with her attorney, whose advised her not to deal with them or give them access since they did not have a warrant.
Meanwhile, Ms, Mapp’s attorney did arrive at her home, but was prevented from entering it by police officer’s. Officer’s presented something to Ms. Mapp which they said was a warrant upon which she proceeded to let them in. In actuality the handed her piece of paper that was not a warrant, they lied to her in order to enter the premises. Upon searching her home they found nothing except some old magazines in a trunk in her basement which they said were of an obscene nature so they took her and convicted her for possession of obscene materials (Wrightman, Nietzel, & Fortune, 1994, p.60). Ms.
Mapp Appealed of course on grounds that the police obtained the evidence illegally, due to them having no warrant and therefore illegally obtaining evidence, which could not be used and admitted in court. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with Ms. Mapp and agreed that illegally obtained evidence should be excluded from court according to the provisions of the Exclusionary Rule. Which is part of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and was adopted in 1914, it states that “if police obtain evidence illegally, the remedy was to make such evidence inadmissible in court”. The Mapp case made the “Exclusionary Rule binding in all states, in this way it provides remedial measures to every suspect whose case may involve evidence obtained in an illegal search and seizure by police (Wrightman, Nietzel, & Fortune, 1994, p.
60). In my opinion I feel that the police did a horrific thing to Ms. Mapp, It was a violation not only of her right’s, but I feel they violated her as a human being, that is at least how I would feel. They decide to go ahead and use their power apparently thinking this woman had no mind of her own. They obviously thought her as being so ignorant or stupid that she would not know the difference between a random piece of paper and legal document. I say more power to her for actually fighting back and showing them she was neither stupid nor afraid of standing up to them, more power to her for doing what she did for the rest of us. If not for her we might not have these laws imposed that we so obviously need.
References Wrightman, Neitzel, and Fortune (1994). After Arrest: Law, the courts and post- arrest Procedures: The Courts in Our Criminal Justice System. Kim Davies, Sarah Holle, & Kathleen Glidden. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Strattford Publishing, 2003.