Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart 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.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
Mapp v. Ohio
Transcript of Mapp v. Ohio
Images from Shutterstock.com Holding Impact 1. "Mapp v. Ohio | Casebriefs." Casebriefs. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2013.
2. "Mapp v. Ohio." West's Encyclopedia of American Law. Ed. Shirelle Phelps and Jeffrey Lehman. 2nd ed. Vol. 6. Detroit: Gale, 2005. 424. U.S. History In Context. Web. 10 Apr. 2013.
3. "Mapp v. Ohio (1961)." American Government. ABC-CLIO, 2013. Web. 10 Apr. 2013.
4. Long, Carolyn N. "Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)." Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court of the United States. Ed. David S. Tanenhaus. Vol. 3. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2008. 226-227. U.S. History In Context. Web. 11 Apr. 2013.
5. MAPP v. OHIO. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 08 April 2013 Work Cited Mapp vs. Ohio
1961 Tamaara Dunlap and Janelle Avelino
Period: 6 They ransacked her house and found obscene materials that she was later convicted for. Background/Context Ruling The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Mapp v. Ohio established that states cannot use evidence seized unconstitutionally, thus extending the exclusionary rule, which was previously applied to the national government in Weeks v. United States (1914). On May 23rd 1957, Cleveland police officers visited the home of Dollree Mapp in search of a person who needed to be questioned as a suspect in the recent CT bombing. She refused their entry because they lacked a search warrant. The officers later forced their own entry holding up a piece of paper claiming it to be a warrant. She requested to see it and snatched it from an officer's hand only to hide it on her and refuse to hand it back.
The officers then arrested her for being belligerent in resisting their recovery of the warrant. The Trial During the trial the prosecution lacked to present a warrant. This means that the police violated the Fourth Amendment, protecting one from illegal searches and seizures. The issue presented to the Supreme Court was whether evidence, discovered during a search and seizure conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment, should be allowed in a State court. How would you rule? The Fourteenth Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the States. This means that the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment applied to the states. The Court was extremely critical of the actions of the police and held that the defendant's privacy had been unconstitutionally invaded. The police tactics were deemed comparable to a confession forced out of a fearful prisoner. The Court ruled that the people had the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The court decided to exclude illegally obtained evidence from the consideration. However,people who opposed argued that considerations of federalism should allow the states to devise their own remedies for unlawful searches. This means that today, state authorities cannot enter your home without a warrant and gather any illegal material, to then prosecute you with. Justice Tom C. Clark used Mapp v. Ohio to overturn Wolf v. Colorado and applied the exclusionary rule to the other half of the states who had not adopted it yet. Federalism would still remained active if the state and federal authorities followed the same protocol when it came to illegal searches and seizures. Since most criminal cases are handled at the state and local level, this decision meant that the exclusionary rule could be applied to the thousands of cases involving illegal police searches every year. This case was a precursor to the Warren Court era, also known as the criminal due process revolution. Robinson v. California 1962 Gideon v. Wainwright 1963 Malloy v. Hogan 1964 Pointer v. Texas 1965 Washington v. Texas 1967 Klopfer v. North Carolina 1967 Duncan v. Louisiana 1968 Benton v. Maryland 1969 The Decision For Mapp Against Mapp 6 3