Mapp's Case Summary

Capsule Summary: Seizing a person’s luggage for an extended period until a warrant is obtained violates the Fourth Amendment as beyond the limits of a Terry stop, but, a sniff by a narcotics dog does not constitute a search for Fourth Amendment purposes.

Yesterday, Sloan Jackson, age 18 was put on trial for stealing a shirt from Famous Fashions in Merchandise Mall. He supposedly ran out of the store with a lump (which was the same color as the stolen shirt) in his jacket to go to Record Mart because there was a big sale going on. He then was found sitting next to the yogurt stand and the shirt was found in a trash barrel near the yogurt stand. He then ran away from the security guard but he was in the end caught and brought back to the store to return the shirt. At the trial yesterday the jury came to a verdict of being guilty after talking in the jury room for about 10 minutes. He could possibly be sentences to 4 years in prison or he might need to pay a fine of up to $2,000 or both.

In the case, the Court did not see sufficient evidence to support the claim that the police violated the respondent’s Fourth Amendment right, prior to entering the resident. There is no evidence of threats or demands made by the police officers, that would insinuate the officer did anything wrong. Because the police in this case did not violate or threaten to violate the Fourth Amendment prior to the exigency, the Court held that the exigency did in fact justify the warrantless search. The officers re-acted upon suspicion and training (Vile, n.d.).

Mapp v. Ohio (1961): The Supreme Court ruling that decided that the fourth amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures must be extended to the states. If there is no probable cause or search warrant issued legally, the evidence found unconstitutionally will be inadmissible in the courtroom and not even considered when pressing charges. The exclusionary rule, in this case, is a right that will restrict the states and not just the federal government, including the states in more of the federal rights as outlined in the Constitution. 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

Procedural history: T.L.O. motioned to suppress the evidence because her Fourth Amendment rights were violated and was denied by the Juvenile Court stating the search was reasonable. The Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court agreed there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the decision stating the search was unreasonable. The State of New Jersey appealed with the U.S. Supreme Court.

Plain view is another search warrant exception with specific requirements. The officer must have a legal right to view the evidence and immediately recognize it as contraband. Also, the item in question cannot be moved or manipulated. The notion of plain feel and smell also fall within the realms of the plain view

These actions did not go by what was established by an earlier, similar case, and by performing the scan with no warrant, the government did not allow DLK to conduct private activities in his own home. Although some argue that the government’s actions were acceptable because they only scanned what was visible to the public, they still used a device not readily available to the public to see inside DLK’s home. The government’s actions were unacceptable, and a warrant should have been obtained prior to performing the search in order to make it

Although, the police officers had a search warrant they had it for the wrong unit which placed a family in danger and they raided the wrong unit in the first place but then raided the right one where they find the evidence but because it was found illegally the judge dismissed all of the evidence against Shakeel “Blam” Wiggins because of the Exclusionary Rule. Now the reason the evidence was dismissed was because there was no specific address on the warrant and this means that an officer cannot just search every unit in the multi-family house until they find evidence against the

On June 19, 1961, the Mapp v. Ohio case was taken to the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington D.C. The situation addressed in court was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment states that people have the right to be secure in their houses, and it forbids unreasonable searches and seizures. Mapp took to court when police forcibly entered her home in Cleveland, Ohio without showing any warrant. The police suspected Mapp of harboring a bomb suspect in her home and possessing illegal betting equipment. After she refused to let them in, the police torn off the screen door and broken the glass to gain entry. Mapp argued it was an invasion of privacy along with a violation to the Bill of Rights and Constitution. While the police did not find either of the two things they were looking for; they did find other illegal material in

In September of 1961, a woman from District of Columbia had an intruder break into her apartment. While the invader of the home was there, they had taken her wallet, and also raped the woman. During the investigation of the crime, the police had found some latent fingerprints in the apartment. The police then established and processed the prints. The prints were then connected back to 16 year old Morris A. Kent. The prints the connected back to when Kent was first entering the system back in 1959 for his earlier crimes. Kent at this time had already been on probation due to crimes committed two years prior to this case. Morris Kent at the age of 14, had first come into contact with breaking the law when he was placed on probation for breaking

The Fourth Amendment was created in response to the British practice of issuing a general warrant—warrants that were not limited in scope. The ultimate check that the Amendment places on law enforcement is one of “reasonableness.” This creates two broad categories of searches: searches that would be unreasonable without a warrant and searches that do not require a warrant. For example, warrants are not relevant in the context of school administration. However, warrants have historically always been required in the course of ordinary law enforcement.” Searches have generally always required warrants, but over time the Court created exceptions.

In this paper many will understand the concepts and the role of a stop and frisks. It will allow the readers to see the good and perhaps the bad of stop and frisk process. The research will also allow the readers to see how law enforcement can abuse power of authority in certain situation. Stop and frisk can be good and evil depending on the type of police officer at the time using his or her belief of the “Golden Rule” (meaning treating others with respect as everyone wants to be treated.)

On May 23, 1957, police in Cleveland, Ohio illegally searched the home of Mapp whom they believed to be hiding a bombing suspect along with illegal betting equipment. Despite not finding the suspect or equipment,

The exclusionary rule was first established in the case of Weeks v. United States in 1914. During the trial, the Supreme Court ruled that the evidence obtained by the law enforcement officer was in violation of the Fourth Amendment and will be inadmissible in federal courts. This rule later became effective in the state courts in 1961 due to the unlawful search of Mrs. Mapp’s house in the case of Mapp v. Ohio. As a result of this case, Mrs. Mapp was convicted for possession of obscene materials but later argued that the law enforcement officer could not use the materials in the trial because they were obtained without a warrant. Although the exclusionary rule is not an independent constitutional right, it serves many purposes such as aiding in the deterrence of police misconduct and providing solutions to defendants whose

In referring to the Pennsylvania Board of Probation vs. Scott based on evidence that he had violated this condition, parole officers entered his home and found firearms and a bow ("Pennsylvania Bd. Of Probation and Parole v. Scott | Casebriefs", 2017). Respondent objected to this evidence being introduced at his parole violation heavily on the ground that is was obtained in a violation of the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches ("Pennsylvania Bd. Of Probation and Parole v. Scott | Casebriefs", 2017). The parole examiner admitted the evidence and as a result, he was forced to serve 3 years back time ("Pennsylvania Bd. Of Probation and Parole v. Scott | Casebriefs",