*Mapp+v.+Ohio

June 19, 1961 ** 1/1 **Summary:** Dollree Mapp of Ohio was thought to be illegally holding a fugitive in her home. In May of 1957, three police officers showed up at Mapp's door, accusing her of keeping someone illegally in her home, but she denied them access. More police officers came to the residence. When they claimed to have a search warrant, they broke down her front door and began searching her house. Mapp was handcuffed as her lawyer arrived, who was not allowed inside. While searching illegally through Mapp's home, they found no fugitive, but they did find "lewd and lascivious" material, illegal due to an Ohio Code prohibiting such material. Because the findings were obtained illegally, without a real warrant, the case was obtained and eventually reached the Supreme Court of the United States. GOOD 5/5
 * Mapp v. Ohio


 * Constitutional/Legal Issue: ** Dollree Mapp appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio, for the fact that the police refused to produce a warrant for the judge. The question at hand has to do with whether or not the search and seizure was reasonable under the fourth amendment, and if it was in violation, whether or not that evidence can be used in court. 5/5


 * Decision or Holding: ** Once reaching the Supreme Court, it was decided that the exclusionary rule did apply to all states, therefore, Mapp was to be re-tried without the illegally obtained evidence. The justices came to a conclusion that under both the 4th and 14th amendments, Mapp could not be convicted based on the evidence. The vote came down to 5 against 4, in favor of Dollree Mapp. WHAT WAS THE RULING ABOUT THE SEARCH? WHY WAS IT AN ILLEGAL SEARCH? EXPLAIN 4.5/5


 * Significance: ** This case has changed the way the law enforcement and other agencies such as the FBI can obtain evidence from a crime. In the Mapp V. Ohio case, a fake warrant was used to enter the house, where the officials found irrelevant, convictable material in Mapp’s basement. Mapp and her lawyers used the fact that the offices had taken the evidence illegally to bring the case all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States. The case ultimately created a law stating that any evidence that is to be used in a court is required to be obtained legally. This case also made it mandatory for all states to use the exclusionary rule- stating that evidence seized in violation of a person’s constitutional rights may not be used against that person in a trial.

EXCELLENT 5/5



DON'T USE A BOOK COVER FOR A PHOTO! 1.5/2

Long, C. N. (2006, April). Mapp v. ohio. Retrieved from []
 * Sources:**

(n.d.). //Mapp v. ohio//. Retrieved from http://www.answers.com/topic/mapp-v-ohio

(n.d.). //Mapp v. ohio//. Retrieved from http://www.landmarkcases.org/mapp/background3.html

(n.d.). //The Legality of evidence seized by the poilice: mapp v. ohio//.

24/25 = 96% (A) NICE JOB GUYS!