ABSTRACT Mapp v. Ohio is a landmark case in criminal procedure of the USA‚ in which the US Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained by illegal search ad seizure which was against the Fourth Amendment‚ will not be used in state courts‚ as well as in federal courts. The Court in Mapp also based its decision on the necessity to protect citizens from police misconduct. This case overrules the decision in the case of Wolf v. Colorado. The Supreme Court decision in Mapp v. Ohio was quite controversial
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Policing Criminal Investigation 12S-CRJU-C312-A51 Dennis Thornton 14 January 2012 Abstract This paper will show how current “Stop and Frisk” (Terry Stop‚ SQF) methods exercised presently diverge greatly from the initial precedent allowed in Terry v. Ohio (1968) due to the inability to concretely define reasonable suspicion as well as the broad applications of reasonable suspicion since 1968. The most notable current representation involves The New York Police Department (NYPD) and its policy regarding
Premium Police Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Terry v. Ohio
Amendment is clearly broken in the case of Weeks v. United States‚ it was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that the warrantless seizure of items from a private residence constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment. It also prevented local officers from securing evidence by means prohibited under the federal exclusionary rule and giving it to their federal colleagues. It was not until the case of Mapp v. Ohio‚ 367 U.S. 643 (1961)‚ that the exclusionary rule
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution
Mapp v. Ohio CJS/210 April 25‚ 2010 David Ross The Warren Court left an unprecedented legacy of judicial activism in the area of civil rights law as well as in the area of civil liberties—specifically‚ the rights of the accused as addressed in Amendments 4 through 8. In the period from 1961 to 1969‚ the Warren Court examined almost 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
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Exclusionary rule
based upon "reasonable suspicion" that a person may have been engaged in criminal activity‚ whereas an arrest requires "probable cause" that a suspect committed a criminal offense. The name comes from the standards established in a 1968 case‚ Terry v. Ohio‚ 392 U.S.1. The issue in the case was whether police should be able to detain a person and subject him to a limited search for weapons without probable cause for arrest. The court held that police may conduct a limited search of a person for weapons
Premium Police Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Terry v. Ohio
States often perform “Terry stops”‚ as part of the work routinely associated with police patrol. In policing the term “Terry Stops” which refers to the “stop and frisk” practice‚ was coined in 1968‚ and derives from the Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio‚ 392 U.S. 1(1968) . In that landmark case‚ it was ruled that the Fourth Amendment constitutional right‚ made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment‚ that prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures” of individuals by American
Premium Police Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Terry v. Ohio
use of race and ethnicity as clues to criminality.” This term is commonly used to refer to police or other law enforcement officials singling out a person or group of people as “potential suspects” because of their race or ethnicity (p.98). Terry v. Ohio On October 31‚ 1963‚ while on a downtown beat which he had patrolled many times over a period of several years‚ Cleveland Police Department detective Martin McFadden spotted two men‚ standing on a street corner at 1276 Euclid Avenue. Detective McFadden
Premium Police Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Crime
The Fourth amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures‚ along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. The interpretation and execution of the Fourth amendment in the courtroom however‚ is decided by the Supreme Court in an attempt to find a fair balance between individual and community interests. The exclusionary rule for example‚ is a Supreme Court precedent that holds police departments responsible for seizing incriminating information
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States Mapp v. Ohio
http://law.jrank.org/pages/5874/Criminal- Procedure-Automobile-Exception-Warrant- Requirement.html Stuckey‚ G.‚ Roberson‚ C.‚ & Wallace‚ H. (2006). Procedures in the justice system (8th Ed.). Upper Saddle River‚ NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Terry v. Ohio (1968.). Retrieved 06 17 2011 from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi- bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=392&invol=1 Search and Seizure (n.d.). Retrieved 06 17 2011 from http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/criminal_rights/your-rights-search-and-seizure/fourth-
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Terry v. Ohio
but upon probable cause‚ supported by Oath or affirmation‚ and particularly describing the place to be searched ‚ and the persons or things to be seized (U.S. Constitution). This amendment was first used in the court system in the case of Terry vs. Ohio (1968). This case was the case that shaped the stop-and-frisk laws that are found in our country today. In 1942 legislators started to authorize stops-and-frisks on less than probable cause under the Uniform Arrest Act. This act gave an officer the
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Terry v. Ohio