U.S. CIVIL LIBERTIES PROJECT Government 1st Period Mr. Edmonson & Mrs. Dean April 19, 2013 Cameron Murphy, Bobby Holt, Clay Roberts
MAPP VS. OHIO
WHO WAS IT? â€˘
The case involved two parties, Dollree Mapp, a woman from Cleveland, Ohio, versus the State of Ohio.
Mapp was the plaintiff, the State of Ohio is the defendant.
WHEN, WHERE, & WHY • On May 23, 1957, police officers received information that a DID case, IT asHAPPEN? suspect in a bombing well as some illegal betting equipment, might be found in the home of Dollree Mapp. DID IT HAPPEN? Three officers went to the home and asked for permission to enter, but Mapp refused to admit them without a search DID IT HAPPEN? warrant. Two officers left, and one stayed. The two returned with several other officers. With just a sheet of paper, with nothing on it, they broke in the door. Mapp asked to see the “warrant” and took it from an officer, putting it in her dress. The officers struggled with Mapp and took the piece of paper away from her. They handcuffed her for being “belligerent.” They didn't find the bombing suspect or the gambling equipment but they did find child pornographic material in a suitcase next to her bed. She was arrested, prosecuted, and found guilty for possession of
WHAT DID IT RESULT IN? â€˘
It was a major case in criminal procedure. The Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures," may not be used in state law criminal prosecutions. Dollree Mapp won the case.
OUR OPINION... â€˘
In our opinion, both parties were wrong. Yes, the police violated law by unlawfully searching her property without permission, but she shouldn't have been able to get clean away with having child pornography and possibly the bomb and betting equipment.