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
MAPP v. OHIO
Transcript of MAPP v. OHIO
The unlawfully seized evidence, obtained without a warrant, should not have been admitted
The sentence denied Mapp her constitutional guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment.
Mapp was denied her constitutional right to due process of law. ( Due process is fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen's entitlement.
Mapp was convicted and tried under Ohio Revised Code which was unconstitutional (The Ohio Code allowed leniency in using the fourteenth amendment, which allowed Mapp to be trialed and convicted illegally).
Mapp was aggressive with the officers and refused arrest during the seize
She owned pornographic material in the home with young children
Importance of Case
The case didn't change any of the amendments, but instead help exercise the fourth amendment properly in the state of Ohio. It changed how the state reviewed the fourth amendment in court and probably gave people more rights to their personal property.
The case has stayed relevant and hasn't been superseded by another landmark case that deals with the fourth amendment
The plaintiff wanted Dollree Mapp's charges to be dropped and for her to be proven not guilty of the possessing pornographic material in her home.
Lower Court Verdicts
After Mapp was convicted her attorney ,Kearns, filed an appeal to the Eighth District Court of Appeals of Ohio, Cuyahoga County, on September 16, 1958. As basis for appeal, he listed several points in the Court of Common Pleas' proceedings. On March 31, 1959, Judge Joy Seth Hurd ruled that the judgement of the lower court should be overturned and given to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Vote: 6-3 vote in favor of Mapp
Date of majority decision: June 19,1961
Justices that voted for the majority: Tom C. Clark, Earl Warren, Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, and William J. Brennan
Author of majority vote: Earl Warren
Majority opinion: The Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth, excludes unconstitutionally obtained evidence from use in criminal prosecutions.
Concurrent opinions and by whom: Hugo Black said that this could conflict if someone does have illegal substances on their property but a warrant isn't used properly.
Difference between majority and minority:
Dollere Mapp was confronted by three police officers on suspicions of having bombing equipment. When the officers arrived at her home and asked to enter the home Mapp asked to see their warrant. When they were unable to provide one she refused entry into her home. Two officers left and leaving the third on the property to wait for their arrival back. The two officers that left returned to the home with a fake warrant and busted into the house. Mapp then asked the officers who abruptly entered the home again for a warrant. When she received the warrant she placed it in her dress and told them to leave. The officers handcuffed her for being "belligerent" and went through thee house and conducted a search. During the search they did not find any bombing equipment but an old trunk that was owned by a previous tenant. The trunk contained pornographic material and they arrested, charged, and proved Mapp guilty of storing pornographic material in her home.