Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

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.

DeleteCancel

MAPP VS. OHIO 1961 (Cold War)

No description
by

Jacob Alvarez

on 13 May 2014

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of MAPP VS. OHIO 1961 (Cold War)

MAPP VS. OHIO 1961 (Cold War)
When
Mapp v. Ohio, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 19, 1961, ruled (6–3) that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures,” is inadmissible in state courts.
Who
Dollree Mapp
3 Police officers
Supreme court
What
On May 23, 1957, police officers in a Cleveland, Ohio suburb received information that a suspect in 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 admit them without a search warrant. Two officers left, and one remained. Three hours later, the two returned with several other officers. Brandishing a piece of paper, they broke in the door. Mapp asked to see the “warrant” and took it from an officer, putting it in her dress. The officers struggled with Mapp and took the piece of paper away from her. They handcuffed her for being “belligerent.”

Police found neither the bombing suspect nor the betting equipment during their search, but they did discover some pornographic material in a suitcase by Mapp's bed. Mapp said that she had loaned the suitcase to a boarder at one time and that the contents were not her property. She was arrested, prosecuted, found guilty, and sentenced for possession of pornographic material. No search warrant was introduced as evidence at her trial


Outcome
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 vote in favor of Mapp. The Supreme Court said evidence seized unlawfully, without a search warrant, could not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts.

How
This case impacts my life today because if police search my house with out a proper search warrant and do find something that can put me in jail it cannot be used in court because of this case.
Historical Background
-Cold war
-Civil rights movement

Work Cited Page
-http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar19.html

-http://www.uscourts.gov/multimedia/podcasts/Landmarks/mappvohio.aspx
Full transcript