Facts: Research Paper Sample

A bombing happened on May twenty third of 1957 at a home of Don King. A couple of days after the fact, Cleveland police telephone tip from an unknown caller that Virgil Ogletree, a suspect in this, was at the home of Dollree Mapp. Officers of the Cleveland Bureau of Special Investigation, including went to the home of Mapp and surrounding it they commanded entrance. After talking to her attorney she was told they could only come in with a warrant. However the police went in anyways. When Mapp asked to see the warrant a piece of paper was flashed at her and the officer struggled when she grabbed it getting it back. In the end the police never had a warrant. The police did find the suspect and some illegal materials in a storm cellar. Mapp challenged that the unlawful materials were the property of a previous guest, and accordingly did not have a place with her, Mapp was captured for ownership of indecent materials and charged with the crime which she pled not guilty to.
The issue in this case is that evidence that was seized in her home was a violation of her fourth amendment rights and if it should be allowed in trial.

Supreme Court decision:

Was that the evidence was seized in an illegal search and seizure that did in fact violate the fourth amendment constitutional rights and therefore it was not allowed to be used during trial?
I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision. No person or entity should violate constitutional rights to obtain evidence. If the police would have followed the rules and obtained a warrant the information could have been used in court. They compromised the investigation by ignoring Mapp as well as everyone’s constitutional and one of America’s most fundamental rights. More specifically the fourth amendment states that the right to people to feel personally secure should not be taken or ignored and no warrants to disturb this should be given unless there is probable cause. In this situation the police ignored this amendment meaning they did not produce the probable cause so for all intents and purpose they may not have had any. However when this was written it was written with the words unreasonable search and seizures in it meaning that if there was an emergency and the police had to enter they could have arrested Mapp for the evidence if it was in plain view. Unfortunately for the officers in this case there was no reasonable explanation for them to ignore Mapps constitutional rights, therefore the evidence they obtained was inadmissible.

References

Casebriefs.com,. (2015). Mapp v. Ohio | Casebriefs. Retrieved 10 January 2015, from http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-keyed-to-saltzburg/searches-and-seizures-of-persons-and-things/mapp-v-ohio-3/
Clevelandmemory.org,. (2015). Mapp v. Ohio - Illegal Search and Seizure : Cleveland Memory. Retrieved 10 January 2015, from http://www.clevelandmemory.org/legallandmarks/mapp/illegalsearch.html
Findlaw,. (2015). Search and Seizure Law - FindLaw. Retrieved 10 January 2015, from http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/search-and-seizure-law.html
Infoplease.com,. (2015). Mapp v. Ohio (1961). Retrieved 10 January 2015, from http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar19.html