2 Answers | Add Yours
Mapp v. Ohio addressed Fourth Amendment rights to protection against unwarranted search and seizure. It established that illegally obtained evidence cannot be used in court to establish guilt.
Facts: Dollree Mapp and her daughter were accused of harboring a fugitive. Police entered her home against her wishes after lying about having a search warrant. They went through her belongs and found some illegal items. They then charged her with having those items.
Procedural history: Mapp was charged and convicted of having obscene materials at the lower court level. She appealed and the appeals court upheld the appeal. She took the case to the Ohio Supreme Court and it was once again upheld. However, the US Supreme Court found that the search was illegal because there was no warrant, the items were not part of the case with the fugitive, and the items were not in plain view.
Issue: What is an illegal search and seizure?
Rule: Rule at the Supreme Court level was that the search was illegal because there was no warrant, the materials were not in plain view and they were not related to the case.
Analysis: The Right to Privacy was upheld. According to this case individuals do not have to allow search by officers who do not have a warrant, and materials illegally obtained cannot be used in a prosecution.
Conclusion: By a vote of 6-3 the court ruled that illegally obtained materials were not admissible.
Recent court cases have weakened this decision.
How come you do not provide the experts name that provided this information... some would like to give credit to those who helped them with their papers. I wouls also like to see more links that have your information listed in it for apa, mla and other papers, it would really be helpful for those who reall need the training.
We’ve answered 288,075 questions. We can answer yours, too.Ask a question