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

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.

No, thanks

Mapp Vs. Ohio

No description
by

Alexandre Davis

on 6 March 2014

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Mapp Vs. Ohio

Mapp Vs. Ohio 367 U.S. 643:

Background Information
Donald King house bombing (1957)
Unknown caller links bombing to Mapp's home.
Police ask to enter premises
Walter Green
Police Break in 3 hours later
Police takes in evidence illegally
Dollree is sent to court
Takes case to Supreme
court.
Constitutional Argument:

Was the search of Mapp's home legal and the evidence admissible under State law and criminal procedure?
If the State criminal procedure code did not exclude the evidence as having been illegally gained, did Ohio law fail to provide Mapp her 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures?
4th Amendment Violated
Majority Opinion
No Warrant
Illegal evidence
Exclusionary rule
5-3 favor for Mapp
Dissenting Opinion
4th amendment was only used by the federal government.

- Search and Seizure
People Involved
Related Cases
Our Position
In favor of the Supreme courts decision.
Katz v. United States


Supreme Court
Walter L. Greene
- Using a telephone inside a private telephone booth and being wiretapped by the FBI.
Beck v. Ohio
- Gaining a tip from an informant and charged from an unconstitutional search.
"To say that a government should be able to use unconstitutionally seize evidence because there is no fundamental prohibition against its use of evidence seized unlawfully by private persons, is to ignore the experience of ages. What can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, it disregard of the charter of its own existence?"
Full transcript