MGMT 520 week 5 DQ #1 Mapp v. Gimbels (graded) Please read problem 3 at the end of Chapter 17 regarding the lawsuit by alleged thief Mr. Mapp against Gimbels Department Store. Under what theory might Mr. Mapp argue that Gimbels is liable for the assault committed against Mapp by Mr. DiDomenico‚ an employee of J.C. Penney’s? Would Mr. Mapp be successful under the theory you chose? Why or why not? It might be argued that there was no agreement between Gimbels and DiDomenico. It also might
Premium Security Macy's Rite Aid
Mapp v. Ohio On May 23‚ 1957‚ police officers in a Cleveland‚ Ohio suburb received information that a suspect of a bombing case‚ as well as some illegal betting equipment‚ might be found in the home of Dollree Mapp. Three officers went to the home and asked for permission to enter‚ but Mapp refused to let them in without a search warrant. Two officers left‚ and one remained. Three hours later‚ the two returned with several other officers with a piece of paper and broke in the door. Mapp asked
Premium United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Mapp v. Ohio‚ 1961 According to the Court’s decision‚ why may illegally seized evidence not be used in a trial? Justice Tom C. Clark wrote on the courts behalf saying that it was logically and constitutionally necessary that the exclusion doctrine be insisted upon‚ even in the states. This doctrine is essential to the right of privacy‚ therefore evidence that is found illegally without a warrant must not be used in a trial‚ for this would be unconstitutional. Why‚ according to Justice
Premium Law United States United States Constitution
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
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States Mapp v. Ohio
Mapp V Ohio “The right of the people to be secure in their persons‚ houses‚ papers‚ and effects‚ against unreasonable searches and seizures‚ shall not be violated‚” Mapp V. Ohio (1961) dealt with that very sentence of the constitution. Were the officers at fault or Mapp? This complex question has a complex answer one that puzzled the Supreme Court and led to a change in criminal procedure. The verdict was a strict interpretation of the constitution. The fourth amendment was relevant because
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
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
Premium United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Mapp v. Ohio (1962) i. Plaintiff‚ Dollree Mapp‚ was illegally raided by Cleveland police. After receiving information that an individual‚ wanted in connection with a recent bombing‚ was hiding in Mapp’s house‚ the Cleveland police knocked on her door and demanded entrance. On the other hand‚ the defendant was the state of Ohio. The police were looking for a bombing suspect and during the search found a gun and obscene literature. ii. On May 23‚ 1957‚ police officers in Cleveland‚ Ohio believed that
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Exclusionary rule Police
Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Criminal Procedure and the Constitution September 13‚ 2012 Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Facts: In Mapp v. Ohio (1961)‚ the police thought Dollree Mapp was hiding a suspect they were looking for in connection with building a bomb. The police officers lied and said they had a search warrant of which they did not and forced their way into Mapp’s home and searched it. While searching the home‚ the police found evidence‚ not for a bomb‚ but of pornographic material that violated
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution
Title: Mapp v. Ohio Legal Citation: 367 U.S. 643‚ 81 S.Ct. 1680‚ 6 L.ED.2d. 1081 (1961( Procedural History: Mapp petition for a writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court for the appreal from the Supreme Court of Ohio. Statement of key Issues: 1) was the search of Mapps home a violation of the fourth amendment? 2) Was the evidence used against Mapps in court illegal? Facts: On May 23‚ 1957‚ three Cleveland police officers arrived at Mapps Home to ask them questions pertaining to someone
Premium United States Constitution Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
CRJU 310 Judge Oberholzer April 12‚ 2009 Mapp v. Ohio * Mapp v. Ohio * 367 U.S. 643 * (1961) * Character of Action Mrs. Mapp was found guilty and sentenced to prison 1-7 years. Mrs. Mapp and her attorney took the case to the Supreme Court in Ohio. * Facts: Three police officers went to Dollree Mapp’s house asking permission to enter into her house‚ because they believed that she was hiding a fugitive in her home. When she did not allow the police officers
Premium Jury United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States