ipl-logo

Mapp Vs Ohio Essay

593 Words3 Pages

Due to cases such as Terry v Ohio and Mapp v Ohio, when police found criminating evidence through an illegal search or obtained proof of a crime through an illegal entry of the home, according to the Supreme Court, this evidence cannot be brought to trial. The Terry v Ohio case decided 8-1 on the grounds of the officer having “a hunch” that Terry had a weapon, this was ruled unconstitutional. Mapp v Ohio was decided 6-3 with the premise “[The Supreme Court] declared that "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by [the Fourth Amendment], inadmissible in a state court."” (Oyez-Mapp). The punishment of police officers and law enforcement has ranged from lawsuits by the victim, consent decrees, citizen review boards, or, rarely, prosecuting the officer (England). Not allowing illegally or improperly obtained evidence in a trial has both positives and negatives. The beneficial effects is that it deters law enforcement from breaking the law and illegally searching and seizing persons or property. However, similar to criminals, police officers will not usually think about the repercussions when committing the crime, in this case unlawfully obtaining evidence. Another positive result of not recognizing illegitimate proof is to force a trust in …show more content…

In the Terry v Ohio case, “The officer stopped and frisked the three men, and found weapons on two of them. Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon...” (Oyez-Terry) the two victims of the unlawful behavior by the officer were obviously guilty of carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. Yet, because of the policeman illegally searched and seized the weapons from the three men on that street corner, the evidence had to be thrown away according to the Supreme Court, even though the evidence conclusively proved guilt in the

Show More
Related

Terry Vs Dickerson Case Study

525 Words | 3 Pages

Based on these observations they stopped Dickerson and patted him down. The search didn’t reveal any weapons, but the officer did notice a small lump in his jacket and to him it felt like a lump of crack cocaine in cellophane. In the evidence suppression hearing, the trial court likened finding the crack cocaine to the “plain view” doctrine which allows officers to seize evidence of contraband in plain sight during a search for other items. Therefore, the evidence was admissible. Throughout the appeals of the case, the Minnesota Court of Appeals and the Minnesota Supreme Court agreed that the initial contact and pat down were valid under Terry, but seizing the cocaine was unconstitutional.

Read More

Summary: The Case Of Sam Wardlow

899 Words | 4 Pages

This applies to Sam Wardlow’s situation in which evidence was founded illegally without a proper search warrant. Also, the weapon that was found in Sam’s bag does not relate to any prior crime that may connect him to. This is not in anyway, allowed for officer Nolan to have even stopped Mr.Wardlow. Possibly, if Sam was connected to a crime beforehand and if the officers did have a proper search warrant. Then there is no way Sam’s rights were violated.

Read More

The United States V. Place 462 US Case Brief

510 Words | 3 Pages

Significance: The Supreme Court here expresses that governmental conduct like drug dog sniffing that can reveal whether a substance is contraband, yet no other private fact, does not compromise any privacy interest, and therefore is not a search subject to the Fourth Amendment. Terry v. Ohio permits only brief investigative stops and extremely limited searches based on reasonable suspicion including seizures of property independent of the seizure of the

Read More

Summary: The Case Of Freemont Weeks V. United States

1396 Words | 6 Pages

In June 1968 the United States Supreme Court affirmed that the conviction allows police officers to interrogate and frisk suspicious individuals.(Chief Justice Warren) Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1

Read More

Minnesota Vs Dickerson Case Summary

435 Words | 2 Pages

Since the police officer had a reasonable suspicion that the Respondent was holding drugs, the officer’s search and seizure of the cocaine was reasonable since the search remained within the bounds set forth by Terry v. Ohio. The United States Supreme Court ruled that a police officer’s sense of touch does not incur an invasion of Petitioner’s privacy during a stop and

Read More

Orlando W. Wilson Summary

372 Words | 2 Pages

The Supreme Court in view of crime and other dangers-offers police mobility in containing crime. In response to the crime in the early 1960’s, Orlando W. Wilson states how police in order to discover and eliminate crime, they must have the authority to question suspects under “reasonable suspicion and search a suspect on reasonable ground.” Usually when a Police officer needs to hold someone in arrest or search a suspect they must have a warrant. This idea proposed by Wilson is to search or talk with a suspect without a warrant only when provided by reasoning that said suspect producing suspicious behavior. This may seem as too much power in the hands of the police but this suggestion does not justify searching anyone and everyone.

Read More

Supreme Court Case Of Ohio Terry V. Ohio

885 Words | 4 Pages

If the police were to conduct a search without a warrant or consent in this situation, any and all evidence found would be prohibited from use against the suspect in the court of law. This rule is called the exclusionary law, created under the Supreme Court ruling of Mapp v. Ohio (Mapp v. Ohio, 1961), states that any evidence that is illegally obtained during an investigation cannot be used in the court of

Read More

When Should An Officer Obtain A Search Warrant?

433 Words | 2 Pages

Terry frisk- an officer can stop and search a suspect if they have a reasonable suspicion that a crime is about to take occur. Officers do search for a weapon because it may pose a threat to the officer and the surroundings. However, the suspect can be allowed to go unless there is probable cause for the suspect arrest. 3. Hot pursuit- officers can seize evidence that be moved or destroyed or made to disappear before a warrant can be issued or granted.

Read More

Wolf V. Colorado Case Brief

584 Words | 3 Pages

The police violated Wolf’s rights and since there was no warrant for arrest or warrant to search his office the police was trespassing. The police officer who violated his rights was to be punished by his superiors. The judges decided that using such evidence goes completely against the Fourth Amendment which is a basic need to our freedom. States should follow this law but are not directly forced to. States using evidence that should be excluded in their “statute becomes a form, and its protection an illusion,”(Wolf v Colorado, 1949).

Read More

Arguments Against The Exclusionary Rule

676 Words | 3 Pages

The exclusionary rule, as applied today, states that any evidence that was found using an unconstitutional method is also unconstitutional; therefore, inadmissible in court. This is because criminal proceedings are to be fair and impartial (i.e. “reason and truth”). I agree, by allowing the exclusionary rule into proceedings, the rights of the defendants are protected. Although the defendants may be guilty, there has to be a system in which the police should also be held accountable for the way they proceed in practice. The criminal proceeding is adversarial with the ultimate goal for both sides being to let the evidence and circumstances prove the truth; therefore, the way the evidence is gather should be a critical element towards a conviction.

Read More

Argumentative Essay On The Fourth Amendment

427 Words | 2 Pages

Back in 1975, there was a major case called, Payton V. New York. Theodore Payton was suspected of murdering a gas station manager, they found evidence within his home that connected him with the crime. What caused the problem was the fact New York had a law that allowed unwarranted searches if the person was a suspect. Based off the oral argument presented by Oyez, the police said it didn't count as the evidence because it was in public view when entering the home. It had to be appealed before it was determined as unconstitutional.

Read More

Arguments Against The Exclusionary Rule

1034 Words | 5 Pages

It is to my understanding that no evidence should be obtained illegally, but it is also to my understanding that there may be situations that officers encounter and use their judgment to get such evidence to help with a conviction. I also understand that no evidence as such since illegal, shall be used in a court of law. There can be so many reasons why illegal evidence cannot be

Read More

Criminally Responsible Law

1035 Words | 5 Pages

(Miladinovic, Z., & Lukassen, J., 2015, February 25) The outcome of a just trial and its verdict, is based on proof of evidence, which ensures what 's best for the

Read More

Virginia Plan Vs New Jersey Plan Essay

537 Words | 3 Pages

In the creating of the US Constitution, the creators hit many roadblocks. It was difficult for the state delegates to decide on much, especially because they were biased and in favor of their own states. The New Jersey Plan and the Virginia Plan were two examples of the disagreement of representation within the states in the legislative branch. The New Jersey Plan was in favor of equal representation throughout the states. The Virginia Plan was in favor of population representation, meaning the larger states would have more representation than the smaller states.

Read More

Mapp Vs Ohio Case Study

1872 Words | 8 Pages

This ruling is controversial because many say that this will let guilty people go free on police carelessness, while others say that the constitution is not a technicality and allows for the equal prosecution of all

Read More

More about Mapp Vs Ohio Essay

Related Topics

Open Document