The Case Of Mapp V. Ohio

992 Words4 Pages

It was a very small gesture that led to the Supreme Court case, which changed how the police are able to do their job. Mapp v. Ohio was a case in which the United States had to go against first judgement and question if the decision they made in the first place was a smart one. By ruling in favor of Dolly Mapp the supreme court decided that you need to have a valid search warrant which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
On May 23, 1957 three police officers showed up at Dolly Mapps house to investigate a recent bombing. They suspected that the man who had information about the bombing was hiding inside her house. The officers didn’t give Mapp any information about why they were there and what was happening. The bomb had exploded …show more content…

They questioned Ogletree and then released him with no hesitation. He was not charged with any connection with the bombing. However, Mapp didn’t get let off so easily. Sergeant Delau questioned her and charged her with the possession of the gambling paraphernalia and obscene materials. At the time, these objects were illegal in Ohio. Neither Mapp nor her attorney, Greene, were ever permitted to see the search warrant. At first Mapp pleaded guilty to the charge of possession of obscene material, but she late withdrew her guilty plea of not guilty. She was arrested in May 1957, yet her trial would be September …show more content…

The supreme court voted 6-3 in favor of Mapp. Five justices ruled that the state needed to exclude evidence found without a search warrant. The majority opinion applied the exclusionary rule to the states. The exclusionary rule requires courts to exclude from criminal trials evidence that was accessed in violation of the constitution’s ban on unreasonable searches. The majority opinion was based on many earlier decisions that had started the process of employing federal constitutional protections to state criminal justice systems. Evidence obtained without a search warrant is not admissible in federal court, so it should not be admissible in state courts either. After all of this discussion, the court decided that the “exclusionary rule is an essential part of both the Fourth and Fourteenth

Open Document