Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Mapp v. Ohio

No description

Kaitlyn Bloomquist

on 28 November 2012

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Mapp v. Ohio

The Opinion - May 23, 1957, police officers in Cleveland, Ohio, had information that a bombing suspect was hiding in the house of Dollree Mapp
- when the police went to Mapp's house to search it, Mapp called her attorney and refused to let the police in without a search warrant
- 3 hours later, still without a warrant, the police forced entrance into her home
- Mapp demanded to see a search warrant and grabbed the piece of paper the police waved at her, the police struggled with Mapp and then put her in handcuffs
- the paper was not really a search warrant
- the police searched Mapp's entire house, they never found the bombing suspect or any gambling equipment
- found obscene materials that were illegal to have under Ohio's obscenity law
- the police charged Mapp with violating that law and the court convicted her and put her in prison
- appealed her case to the Ohio supreme court on the basis of the 1st amendment, argument rejected
- appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on the basis of the 4th amendment, which guards against unlawful searches and seizures The Issue The Impact - Earl Warren
- March 19, 1891 – July 9, 1974
- 14th chief justice
- presided over the case that ended school segregation and and helped to transform the rights of the accused
- presided over Brown v. Board of Education (1954), Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), Reynolds v. Sims (1964), and Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
- his tenure as Chief Justice was seen as a high point of the power of the American Judiciary system The Chief Justice The outcome - US Supreme Court incorporated the Fourth Amendment to the States and applied the Exclusionary Rule
- Exclusionary Rule prohibits the prosecution from using evidence obtained illegally to convict the defendant
-Supreme Court ruled that any illegally obtained evidence could not be introduced in federal courts
Mapp v. Ohio The Majority The Minority - opinion of Justice Tom Clark
- opinion joined by Justices Earl Warren, William O. Douglas, and William Brennan
- the police had acted improperly by searching Mapp's property without a warrant
- any incriminating evidence found during the search should be thrown out of court and her conviction overturned
- William Douglas and Hugo Black also filed a separate concurring opinions
- Potter Stewart concurred solely on free-speech grounds Kaitlyn Bloomquist Period 4 November 19, 2012 - Dissent written by John Marshall Harlan and joined by Felix Frankfurter and Charles E. Whittaker
- even if the search was made without proper authority, the State was not prevented from using the evidence seized because “the Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure.”
- Ohio argued that the 14th Amendment does not guarantee 4th Amendment protections in State courts.
- under the 10th Amendment, the States retain their right to operate a separate court system.
- the Bill of Rights only restricts and limits the actions of the National Government Works Cited pictures

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643 (1961)

Persico, Deborah A. Mapp v. Ohio: Evidence and Search Warrants.
Enslow Publishers, Inc., 1997.

MAPP v. OHIO. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of
Law. 18 November 2012. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-
1969/1960/1960_236>. - until Mapp, states didn't have to obey the exclusionary rule, which prevents the government from using evidence found during an illegal search and seizure
- by forcing states to obey the exclusionary rule, the Supreme Court strengthened the Fourth Amendment's protection of privacy for Americans - 1st amendment - protects freedom of speech
- Mapp felt that her 1st amendment rights had been
violated by the police and Ohio's obscenity law
- 4th amendment - protects against unlawful searches and seizures
- Mapp argued that Ohio should not be allowed to
convict her with evidence found during an illegal
10th amendment - the 10th amendment states that any power not
granted to the federal government by the
Constitution is reserved to the states or the people
- Ohio argued that under the 10th, they retained the
right to operate a separate court systen

- Supreme Court was extremely critical of the actions of the police and held that the defendant's privacy had been unconstitutionally invaded The Winner - court ruled in favor of Mapp on the grounds that her right to privacy was infringed upon when the police searched her home without a warrant
- ruled that all evidence that was found in the search could not be used in court
- conviction was overturned
- police tactics in the case were deemed comparable to a confession forced out of a fearful prisoner
- Mapp won the case by a vote of 6 for and 3 against Major Issues - Do states have to follow the Exclusionary Rule?

- Can homes be searched and property seized without a proper warrant if there is reasonable suspicion for the search?
Full transcript