Mapp V. Case Study

489 Words2 Pages
The police officers arrived at Ms. Dollree Mapp’s home, looking for a bombing suspect who was believed to be staying with Mapp. Officers knocked at her door and demanded entry. After placing a call to her attorney Mapp decided not to let law enforcement enter her home. (Landmark Cases) After a few hours, the officers returned to Mapp’s home with what they claimed was a search warrant (Landmark Cases); while, Mapp still wouldn’t allow them entrance; they used brute force to gain entry to the home. After the officers were inside of the house, Mapp grabbed the paper from the officers, and she was handcuffed “because she had been belligerent”. (Landmark Cases) Soon afterwards, Mapp’s attorney arrived but was not permitted to enter the home or see her client. (FindLaw) A complete search of…show more content…
The Supreme Court cited the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to justify their ruling. The Fourth Amendment provides an individual protection against unreasonable search and seizure, but it itself was not binding enough to negate the use of illicitly acquired evidence in a criminal case. Though, when combined with the Fifth Amendment, an Amendment that provides protection from self-incrimination, the use of this type of evidence is considered unconditional. (Laws) The Supreme Court previously ruled not to allow illegally confiscated evidence into federal trials, in the case of Weeks v. the United States. In my opinion, it should be mandatory that every state uphold these same standards, that are set foreword by the Constitution and its amendments. Since, the police entered Mapp’s home without any permit or warrant, I believe that all materials found during this search should be void in a court of
Open Document