US Supreme Court Case: The Mapp Vs. Ohio Case

Riley v. California in 2014 was a case in which the United States Supreme Court argued whether the police has the right to search and seize digital content without a warrant, from individuals who have been arrested. So, the main question of the case was whether the evidence admitted at trial from Riley’s cell phone violated his Fourth Amendment right. The court ruled, by a unanimous vote that a warrantless cell phone search during an arrest is unconstitutional.

The case of Mapp vs. Ohio is a case of illegal search and seizure. It went to the Supreme Court in 1961. It is important to today’s society because it might mean the difference between guilty and innocent. I agree with the Supreme Court because it is illegal to access private property without a warrant or consent. The case lasted until June 19, 1961.

The Verdict discussed how both cases were attempting to suppress evidence from their cell phones which now contain much more information than they once did. Cases like this continue to shape our rights. The fourth amendment is here to protect ourselves from being incriminated. In modern day the fourth amendment is in question due to new technology.

Good evening! This is Bryce Seyler with WFREE News reporting live from the United States Supreme Court. Today, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the case of Mapp v. Ohio making it one of the most famous Supreme Court cases to take place in this century. Supreme Court Justices had to decide whether evidence discovered during a search and seizure conducted in violation of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution was admissible in a state court. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Dollree Mapp in a 6-3 vote.

Before 1948 Julius A. Wolf had been arrested and tried for reasons not stated in the Supreme Court case, but the evidence that was used against Wolf was taken unlawfully, the police had no warrant for his arrest as well as no warrant to search his office. Wolf was able to get an appeal to be tried one more time.

41. 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.

1. Case Title and Citation ■ Washington v. Glucksberg 521 U.S. 702,117 S. Ct. 2258,117 S. Ct. 2302; 138 L. Ed. 2d 772 2. Procedural History The United States Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for any individuals to help another person to commit suicide.

A Washington police officer stopped a student at the Washington State University after observing the student was carrying a bottle of gin. After asking the student for identification the student informed him that is was in his dorm room. The student, followed by the officer, then went into his room get his identification. While the student was searching for his identification, the officer noticed that the student 's roommate, had marijuana seeds and a pipe on his desk. The officer asked the students if they had additional drugs in the room and the students provided him with a box with marijuana and money. Another officer arrived on the scene and they search the student’s room and found additional drugs. The student (roommate of the original student) was charged with possession of a controlled substance.

Now although the office filled the warrant out he didn’t specify which unit in a multi-family housing unit was supposed to be search. Unfortunately, the police raided the wrong house or residence, which in returned caused them to kick down the door as well as terrorize an innocent family. Therefore, an innocent person could have gotten killed which has happened before in New York. However, the requirement that the location of a search warrant be specific isn’t “a technicality” but a core principle of the Fourth Amendment (washingtonpost.com. n.d.). Therefore, the reason that the Fourth Amendment was created goes back to the general warrants that the British crown issued to English

The Fourth Amendment was formally sanctioned in 1791 as a direct response to the Writs of Assistance. These were search warrants issued by courts to assist the British government in enforcing trade and navigation laws. The warrants authorized officers to search any house for smuggled goods without specifying either the house or the goods. The Fourth Amendment was proposed to stop this and states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” In laymen terms, this amendment prevented officers to search people’s property without their consent, or the approval of a judge.

Claiming the thermal evidence was a violation of the fourth amendment right, your right to privacy within your home and to legal searches. After this case was sent to the Supreme Court, which I agree is where this case belonged, they found that the lower courts judgments were wrong in admitting this evidence. And after reading the facts of the case fully and Justice Scalia’s court opinion, I would have to agree that this case requires further inquiry into the original intent of the fourth amendment. I think that we as citizens do have a right to privacy within are home, however I think that if someone is doing something illegal within their home then there should be proper measurements that are taken to stop them. The reason I think the court should have ruled in the way they did is because this is a case where is begs the question how far can someone go using technology to obtain information that normally would have caused the officer to break the law to

The case of California v. Greenwood involves police who were investigating a potential drug trafficker, Greenwood. The police, who were acting on information that suggested that Greenwood could possibly be engaged in narcotics trafficking, obtained trash that Greenwood had left on the curb in front of his home. Considering the trash included items indicative of narcotics use, the police then obtained warrants to search Greenwood’s home, discovered controlled substances during their searches, and subsequently arrested respondents on felony narcotics charges.

In the case of Riley V. California, Mr. Riley was stopped on a traffic violation, which led to his arrest on weapons charges. The officer searching Riley’s incident to arrest seized a cell phone form Riley’s possession. There was information on the phone and repeated use of a term associated with a street gang. Hours later a gang detective examined the phone’s digital contents and based in part on photographs and videos found, the State charged Riley in connection with a shooting that occurred a few weeks earlier. They sought an enhanced sentence based on Riley’s gang membership. He was ultimately charged with connection to an earlier shooting, firing at an occupied vehicle, assault with a semiautomatic firearm, and attempted murder. Riley

Youngblood case has great relevance to today’s and future court cases. There are three things that this case has proved to today’s society. The first is that it covered the potential acts of good faith in the police officer, and how the evidence that was claimed to not be stored properly. The defendant blamed the officer and thought they should be accountable for the length of Youngblood’s sentences. It has been proven that even though the evidence is an essential piece to the individual case, the officer should not be held fully responsible for the entire sentence for a mistake.

696, 709] suspect 's custody, we think the limitations applicable to investigative detentions of the person should define the permissible scope of an investigative detention of the person 's luggage on less than probable cause. Under this standard, it is clear that the police conduct here exceeded the permissible limits of a Terry-type investigative stop.” “In these respects, the canine sniff is sui generis. We are aware of no other investigative procedure that is so limited both in the manner in which the information is obtained and in the content of the information revealed by the procedure.”