What is a summary of Mapp v Ohio?

Answer 1

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643 (1961)

Until Mapp, states did not have to obey the exclusionary rule, which prevents the government from using evidence its gets during an illegal search and seizure. By forcing states to obey the exclusionary rule, the Supreme Court ensured the states complied with important US Constitutional protections.

For more information, see Related Questions, below.

Answer 2

Mapp v. Ohio applied the "exclusionary rule" developed in Weeks v. US, (1914) to the states. The exclusionary rule arose from Fourth Amendment constitutional protection and prevents the prosecution from using illegally obtained evidence against a defendant in court. (The Mapp rule has been modified slightly by later cases.)

Explanation

In 1957, Cleveland, Ohio, police received a tip that Dollree Mapp was harboring a bombing suspect and concealing illegal "policy paraphernalia" in her home. Three officers approached Mapp's house and requested permission to search the premises, but she refused to let them in without a warrant on the advice of her attorney. Two of the three officers left, ostensibly to obtain a search warrant, and returned several hours later with additional officers and a piece of paper. When Mapp failed to respond to their knocks, police gained forcible entry through one of the doors.

Mapp asked to see the "warrant," but when police refused, she snatched it from one of the officers and stuffed it into her bra. The police struggled with Mapp, retrieved the paper, and detained the homeowner for being "belligerent."

Although the officers failed to find the evidence the were looking for, they did discover a suitcase full of pornography in Dollree Mapp's bedroom. Mapp asserted she had loaned the suitcase to a former boarder and did not own the contents of the luggage. Mapp was nevertheless arrested and convicted on charges of possessing pornography.

Since no warrant was produced at trial and there was no evidence of one being issued in police records, Mapp's arrest and conviction raised questions about violation of her Fourth Amendment rights:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Supreme Court Decision

In 1914, in the case Weeks v. US, the Supreme Court held that evidence obtained as the result of an illegal search and seizure could not be used in court. This "exclusionary rule" originally applied only to the federal government, a decision upheld in Wolf v. Colorado, (1949). In a 6-3 decision in Mapp v. Ohio, the Warren Court overruled the Wolfprecedent and incorporated (applied) the Fourth Amendment to the states, holding that the security of "one's privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police . . ." is "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."

Justice Tom C. Clark, who wrote the opinion of the Court, quoted from the opinion in Weeks v. US: "If letters and private documents can thus be seized and held and used in evidence against a citizen accused of an offense, the protection of the Fourth Amendment declaring his right to be secure against such searches and seizures is of no value, and, so far as those thus placed are concerned, might as well be stricken from the Constitution."

Clark noted that the decision not to incorporate the Fourth Amendment to the states in 1949 was predicated on Colorado's forceful argument that police abuse of power occurred too infrequently to merit federal government intrusion. Clark went on to quote later decisions in state courts that concluded Fourth Amendment abuses were so rampant, no other remedy worked to check unreasonable search and seizure except applying the "Weeks (exclusionary) rule."

[The purpose of the rule] "is to deter -- to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty [of privacy] in the only effectively available way -- by removing the incentive to disregard it."

In his concluding remarks, Clark acknowledged the potential for criminals to benefit from technical mistakes: "The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence."

Reversed and remanded.

Later Decisions

The Burger Court later modified the "Mapp Rule," by allowing exceptions for "inevitable discovery" (Nix v. Williams, (1984)) and "good faith" decisions by police (US v. Leon, (1984)).

Case Citation:

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643 (1961)

Answer 3

In Mapp v. Ohio, police arrived at a home seeking a bombing suspect. After failing to gain entry the first time, they returned with what was allegedly a search warrant and forcibly entered the premises. While conducting their search, obscene materials were found. The owner was tried and convicted for possession of these materials. All evidence acquired from a search and seizure that is in violation of the Fourth Amendment is not admissible in the state's case.

Answer 4

The US Supreme Court held that states had to abide by the "Weeks Rule," or "exclusionary rule," established as a result of Weeks v. US, (1914), but previously applied only to the Federal government. The "exclusionary rule" is a Fourth Amendment protection intended to deter law enforcement officials from conducting unconstitutional searches and seizures by prohibiting the introduction of illegally obtained evidence into court. The Warren Court used the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause to incorporate (apply) the Fourth Amendment to the states, ending the states' immunity from adhering to that portion of the Bill of Rights.

Dollree Mapp's conviction for possession of pornography, discovered in luggage she'd loaned a former boarder, was vacated and the case remanded to the Ohio courts because police had lied about having a search warrant to enter her property.

While the Court acknowledged restraining the police would inevitably result in some criminals going free, use of the exclusionary rule was the only deterrent that had proven effective in preventing the police and prosecution from infringing Fourth Amendment rights.

Case Citation:

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643 (1961)

For more information, see Related Questions, below.

Answer 5

No. Mapp v. Ohio was about the constitutionality of using evidence obtained from illegal or unreasonable search and seizure to prosecute a defendant in court. The Supreme Court held evidence obtained from a suspect illegally could not be used at trial without violating the Fourth Amendment prohibition against illegal search and seizure. The Court decided to apply the federal Exclusionary Rule to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.

Case Citation:

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643 (1961)

For more information, see Related Questions, below.

Answer 6

The underlying issue in Mapp v. Ohio was the constitutionality of using evidence obtained from illegal or unreasonable search and seizure to prosecute a defendant in court. The Supreme Court held evidence obtained from a suspect illegally could not be used at trial without violating the Fourth Amendment prohibition against illegal search and seizure. The Court decided to apply the federal Exclusionary Ruleto the states via the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.

Case Citation:

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643 (1961)

Answer 7

Mapp violated the Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure Clause, which the Supreme Court had decided not to incorporate to the States in an earlier case, Wolf v. Colorado, 338 US 25 (1949).

The decision in Mapp allowed the Court to apply the federal Exclusionary Rule to "evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Federal Constitution is inadmissible in a criminal trial in a state court."

Interestingly, the case was originally presented to the Court as a First Amendment question because Mapp had been tried and convicted on obscenity charges, but the justices determined the real issue was the method police used to obtain the evidence used to convict Mapp at trial.

Case Citation:

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643 (1961)

Answer 8

police went into dolree mapp house and found pornographic materials without a search warrant.