answersLogoWhite

0


Best Answer

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643 (1961), was a Fourth Amendment case that had its procedural roots in a 1914 US Supreme Court decision protecting defendants' rights against illegal search and seizure in federal cases, but had never been extended to the States.

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."

User Avatar

Wiki User

13y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar
More answers
User Avatar

Wiki User

12y ago

Wolf vs. Colorado (1949)

Olmstead vs. U.S. (1928)

Palko vs. Connecticut(1937)

Weeks vs. U.S. (1914)

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

12y ago

No, never.

This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: What was the precedent of mapp v Ohio?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Related questions

What is the precedent of New Jersey V TLO?

Mapp v. Ohio and Terry v. Ohio YES ITS IS BUT NOT REALLY, ITS THE CASE HELD IN SCHOOL WHERE TEACHERS SEARCHED HER WITHOUT ANY LEGAL NOTICE CALLED AS "PROBABLE CAUSE".


Who were the parties in Mapp v Ohio?

The parties in Mapp v. Ohio were Dolree "Dolly" Mapp, the petitioner/appellant, and the State of Ohio, the respondent/appellee.Case Citation:Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643 (1961)For more information, see Related Questions, below.


How did Mapp v Ohio change the Constitution?

Mapp v Ohio, 367 US 643 (1961)Mapp v Ohio didn't change the Constitution, it simply incorporated the Fourth Amendment to the states, requiring them to adhere to that portion of the Bill of Rights and to follow the "exclusionary rule" established in Weeks v US, (1914).For more information, see Related Questions, below.


The Supreme Court case of Mapp v Ohio established the?

exclusionary rule


What was Dollree Mapp's ethnic heritage?

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643 (1961)Dollree Mapp was African-American.To view a picture of Dollree Mapp, see Related Links, below.


Was the decision of the Mapp v Ohio case loose or strict construction?

Loose constuction.


Who was the defendant in the mapp v Ohio 1962 case?

The Appellant, or Petitioner, in Mapp v. Ohio was Dolree "Dolly" Mapp, a Cleveland woman convicted of possessing obscene materials after police conducted an illegal search of her home because they thought she was harboring a suspect in the bombing of legendary boxing promoter Don King's home. The Appellee, or Respondent, was the State of Ohio, which was defending a challenge of the state statute under which Mapp was convicted as being constitutionally overbroad under the First Amendment.The Fourth Amendment issue was introduced in an Amicus brief written by the ACLU, and not argued as part of the case before the Supreme Court.Case Citation:Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643 (1961)For more information, see Related Questions, below.


Why didn't the Court's decision in Wolf v Colorado protect Mapp in Mapp v Ohio?

hahahhaah 'cause yu sista is from decatur high school & she sucks Luke jackson's dick.


What appellate court heard the mapp v Ohio case?

i like dog food in my cereal


What are the related cases with Mapp v Ohio?

There are no other 'related' cases. The US Supreme Court only takes one representative case for review when considering the constitutionality of a law. If, indeed, there even were other cases, ONLY the Mapp v. Ohio case was chosen.


What was the date of the Mapp v Ohio case?

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643 (1961)The case was argued on March 29, 1961. The US Supreme Court released its decision on June 19, 1961.For more information, see Related Questions, below.


What were the results of Mapp v Ohio?

The primary result of Mapp v. Ohio, (1961) was that the US Supreme Court incorporated the Fourth Amendment to the States and applied the Exclusionary Rule originally established in Weeks v. US, (1914). The Exclusionary Rule prohibits the prosecution from using evidence obtained illegally (in this case, as the result of wrongful search and seizure) to convict the defendant.More InformationDollree Mapp won her US Supreme Court case, Mapp v. Ohio,(1961), by a vote of 6-3, and her conviction for possession of pornography was vacated, ending the seven-year prison sentence Ohio imposed in 1958.Although Mapp's attorney argued originally argued the Ohio law under which Mapp was convicted was unconstitutional because it was overbroad and infringed on her First Amendment rights, the Supreme Court ultimately decided the case on the basis of a Fourth Amendment search and seizure violation, incorporating that Amendment to the states and extending the federal "exclusionary rule" to prohibit illegally obtained evidence from being used against the defendant in court.Case Citation:Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643 (1961)