Mapp v. Ohio
What
Happened?
- In Cleveland, Ohio, 1951,
police barged into Dollree
Mapp’s home.
- The police suspected that she
was hiding a bomb suspect in
her home.
- When she asked for a warrant
they showed her a piece of
paper which they claimed was
a warrant, but it wasn’t.
- During the search in her home
instead of finding the bomb
suspect, they found sexually
explicit books and pictures.
Who is Mapp?
-
-
-
-
Mapp was a 34 year old African
American woman, with a clean
criminal record.
She had a daughter and she
was recently divorced with
boxer Jimmy Bivins.
She was later engaged but
never married to boxer Archie
Moor.
She obviously had ties with the
boxing world, so when boxing
promoter, Don King, had found
a bomb in his home they
suspected Mapp of hiding the
suspect.
Ohio State
Court System
- In state court, using
unconstitutionally seized
evidence was still able to
be used under the
exclusionary Act
established in Wolf v.
Colorado
- They convicted her for 1-7
years on the basis of
violating Ohio State law of
possession of “lewd and
lascivious” items.
Mapp’s
Argument
-
After being sent to prison, she
appealed first to the Ohio
Supreme Court then again to
the U.S. Supreme court.
- She argued that she could
have those items in her home
because it was part of her first
amendment rights, freedom of
expression.
- Also the court was violating
her 4th Amendment right,
which doesn’t allow the court
to use unlawful evidence.
Ohio State Police’s
Argument
- The police stated that
the evidence wasn’t
taken from Mapp
forcefully.
- The precedent case,
Wolf v. Colorado,
stated that evidence
found without a search
warrant was able to be
used in court.
Ideas/Rights being argued
- Did this violate the first Amendment?
- Did this violate the 4th Amendment?
- Should the precedent case, Wolf v. Colorado, still stand?
How would you decide?
Supreme Court
Decision
The Supreme Court
decided that using the
pictures and books in
court didn’t follow the
search and seizure
procedures, which
was included in the
4th Amendment.
Significance?
- Police must have a search warrant to be able to use the
confiscated evidence in court.
- It got rid of the exclusionary rule.
- Police must follow search and seizure procedures.
1. When did this case take
place?
2. What was Mapp’s
argument?
3. What did the Justices
decide?
4. What did this case do for
the U.S?
Recap Quiz
Works Cited
http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/supreme-cou
rt-landmarks/mapp-v-ohio-podcast
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2014/12/08/dollree-mapp-1923-2014-the-rosa
-parks-of-the-fourth-amendment#.RoSeLOi30
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/367/643/case.html
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1960/2364
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/367/643