 |
Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
Mapp v. Ohio: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
mNo edit summary |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=Yes " to "") |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|subject=Criminal Law | |subject=Criminal Law | ||
|appealed_from=Ohio Supreme Court | |appealed_from=Ohio Supreme Court | ||
|overturned=Wolf v. Colorado | |overturned=Wolf v. Colorado | ||
|related=Wolf v. Colorado | |related=Wolf v. Colorado | ||
| Line 11: | Line 10: | ||
Mapp would not grant entry to police officers without a search warrant. Upon entry, police found pornographic photos. | Mapp would not grant entry to police officers without a search warrant. Upon entry, police found pornographic photos. | ||
|procedural_history=Ms. Mapp is charged with possession of obscene materials. The Ohio trial court convicts Ms. Mapp of possessing obscene materials. | |procedural_history=Ms. Mapp is charged with possession of obscene materials. The Ohio trial court convicts Ms. Mapp of possessing obscene materials. | ||
|issues=Is evidence obtained during an un-constitutional search & seizure admissible in state court? | |||
|arguments=Ms. Mapp argued that the Ohio obscenity law violated her [[1st Amendment]] rights. | |arguments=Ms. Mapp argued that the Ohio obscenity law violated her [[1st Amendment]] rights. | ||
|holding=Any evidence obtained in contravention of a suspect's [[4th Amendment]] rights against unreasonable searches and seizures should be excluded from the trial. | |holding=Any evidence obtained in contravention of a suspect's [[4th Amendment]] rights against unreasonable searches and seizures should be excluded from the trial. | ||
The '''exclusionary rule''' extends to the states. | The '''exclusionary rule''' extends to the states. | ||
The majority disregarded Mapp's 1st Amendment free-speech claims. | |||
|rule=*[[Criminal_Procedure#The_Exclusionary_Rule]] | |rule=*[[Criminal_Procedure#The_Exclusionary_Rule]] | ||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
| Line 21: | Line 23: | ||
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | }}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/mapp-v-ohio | |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/mapp-v-ohio | ||
|case_text_source=Quimbee | |source_type=Video summary | ||
|case_text_source=Quimbee | |||
}} | }} | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 03:36, July 14, 2023
| Mapp v. Ohio | |
| Court | Supreme Court of the United States |
|---|---|
| Citation | |
| Date decided | June 19, 1961 |
| Appealed from | Ohio Supreme Court |
| Overturned | Wolf v. Colorado |
| Related | Wolf v. Colorado |
Facts
Police in Cleveland, Ohio, thought a bombing suspect was hiding in the home of Ms. Mapp.
Mapp would not grant entry to police officers without a search warrant. Upon entry, police found pornographic photos.Procedural History
Ms. Mapp is charged with possession of obscene materials. The Ohio trial court convicts Ms. Mapp of possessing obscene materials.
Issues
Is evidence obtained during an un-constitutional search & seizure admissible in state court?
Arguments
Ms. Mapp argued that the Ohio obscenity law violated her 1st Amendment rights.
Holding
Any evidence obtained in contravention of a suspect's 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures should be excluded from the trial.
The exclusionary rule extends to the states.
The majority disregarded Mapp's 1st Amendment free-speech claims.
