Mapp vs. Ohio: Illegal Search and Seizure Essay -- Court Case Mapp Ohi

Mapp vs. Ohio Illegal Search and SeizureThe character reference of Mapp vs. Ohio is one of the most important irresponsible Court decisions of the last century. Until this decision, the rights against unlawful front and seizure had no method to be enforced. Up until this time, introductory cases at set precedents provided little or no protection from extralegal searches and seizures for the accused facing state prosecution. On May 23, 1957, Miss Dollree Mapp hear a knocking at her door (170 Ohio Street). When she asked who it was, three men identify themselves as Cleveland police officers. The officers stated that they believed a fugitive was hiding in her home. Miss Mapp told the officers that there was no one else in her home. They asked her for entrance. Miss Mapp phoned her attorney, and was instructed non to let the police into her home. The police grudgingly left, and set up direction around the home. Around three hours later, the police officers returned to Miss Mapps residence, and was met by cardinal additional officers as well. The officers gave Miss Mapp little time to respond to their presence, and just about immediately forced entry through several of the entrances to Miss Mapps home. Miss Mapps attorney arrived on the scene to provide council, but was met by the police instead. The police held him outside, preventing him from meeting with his client. When Miss Mapp was confronted by the officers, she demanded to see the search warrant. An officer held up a piece of paper, which is believed to be a cook warrant. Miss Mapp grabbed the paper, and put it down her blouse. The police wherefore forcibly tried and true to retrieve the warrant from Miss Mapps blouse. They handcuffed her for being belligerent. The police then proceeded to search every room in the entire house. In the basement, they effectuate a trunk, which they opened. Inside they found materials that they considered to be obscene. They retrieved all the materials, and super charged her with the possession of obscene material (Ohio Rev. Code, 2905.34 No person shall knowingly . . . create in his possession or under his control an obscene, lewd, or insensible book, magazine, pamphlet, paper, writing, advertisement, circular, print, picture . . . or drawing . . . of an indecent or immoral character . . . . Whoever violates this section shall be fined not less than two hundred nor much than two tho... ...ow meant that citizens had different rights depending on what state they lived in. This allowed another way for prosecutors to ridicule the system. They could attempt to get cases to be heard in states which did not be in possession of an exclusionary rule adopted. By applying the federal exclusionary rule to all the states, all citizens would be equally protected. While a controversial decision at the time, the institution of the exclusionary rule is now one of the backbones of the accused rights in American society. As a review, Mapps rights were clearly violated by the Police department and by the State of Ohio. Had it not been for the Supreme Court to enforce her constitutional rights, her strong belief would have gone unjust. Theres many arguments between the prosecutors, police, and apology about the Mapps case. Views such(prenominal) as how is the police department supposed to stop crime if they pitch search it out and find it with the disability the fourth amendment brings to them. How can defense attourneys defend subjects/victims if they have no privacy due to the lack of protrude on the fourth amendment. The Mapps case is a perfect example of how the Supreme Court impacts our society.