On October 31‚ 1963‚ Detective Martin McFadden was in plain clothes‚ patrolling his downtown beat in Cleveland‚ Ohio‚ an area that he had been patrolling for shoplifters and pick-pocketing the last 30 years. At 2:30 PM‚ he noticed two unknown individuals‚ John Terry and Richard Chilton acting suspiciously‚ standing on a street corner. One of the men walked away and stopped to look in a nearby store window‚ continued walking‚ and on the way back stopped to look in the same store window before rejoining
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Terry v. Ohio
from identifiable police officer‚ patrolling a high crime area‚ suspicious to justify the officer’s stop and frisk of that person? This was the question that the justices of the Supreme Court were asking themselves when they heard the case of Illinois v. Wardlow on the date of November 2‚ 1999. A few things happened in the U.S. government in 1999. In January‚ Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial began. Clinton would later be acquitted in February. In March‚ the Supreme Court upheld the murder
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States Terry v. Ohio
Terry v. Ohio‚ 392 U.S. 1 (1968) “Unreasonable search and seizures” One of the many things learned at state police academies around the country is the “Terry pat”. What a Terry pat is‚ is a basic pat down of a suspects outer clothing‚ searching for weapons. The name came be known by a Superior Court case in the 1960’s‚ known as Terry v. Ohio. The case originated back in October 1963‚ involving John W. Terry and Richard Chilton. The two men were seen on a corner by veteran police detective
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
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
Mapp v. Ohio‚ 367 U.S. 1081‚ 81 S. Ct. 1684‚ 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (1961) Facts: On May 23rd‚ 1957‚ three Cleveland police officers arrived at the home of Mrs. Mapp with information that ‘a person was hiding out in the home‚ who was wanted for questioning in connection with a recent bombing‚ and that there was a large amount of policy paraphernalia being hidden in the home’. Mrs. Mapp and her daughter lived on the top floor of the two-family dwelling. Upon their arrival at that house‚ the officers
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Exclusionary rule
MAPP V. OHIO 367 U.S. 643 (1961) Ms. Dollree Mapp and her daughter lived in Cleveland‚ Ohio. 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. Mapp called her attorney and subsequently refused to let the police in when they failed to produce a search warrant. After several hours of surveillance and the arrival of more officers‚ the police again sought entrance
Premium
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
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
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
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