Evan Parkinson and Ryan Richmond

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Landmark Supreme Court Case Integrated Government Mrs. Brahe and Mrs. Compton.

Advertisements

Historical Background Dollree Mapp was under suspicion for possibly hiding a person suspected in a bombing. Mapp refused to let the police in her home.

The Warren Court Jill St. Laurent Carley Denis. Earl Warren 14 th Chief Justice Very Liberal vs Conservative Appointed by Eisenhower Racial Equality.

Monroe vs. Pape Argued: November 8, Decided: February 20, 1961 Kelly Sass.

Section 10.2 The Exclusionary Rule Section 10.2 The Exclusionary Rule.

Supreme Court Cases Use your knowledge of the Bill of Rights to determine how the Supreme Court should rule for each case.

POP QUIZ How did the Courts increase the political power of people in urban areas and those accused of a crime? GIVE AN EXAMPLE.

Warren Court. Warm-up Do you have rights when you are being arrested? What rights do you have?

Instructions for using this template. Remember this is Jeopardy, so where I have written “Answer” this is the prompt the students will see, and where.

Law enforcement officers conduct searches every day in an effort to find evidence that can be seized and used in court to prosecute people who have violated.

Landmark Supreme Court Cases: Mr. Blough Academic Civics.

Supreme Court Cases Continued Civics. Furman V Georgia 1972 William Henry Furman convicted on Murder and Sentenced to Death – Supreme Court hears his.

Mapp v Ohio By: Gavin Koonts 10/27/13 Block 2. Mapp v Ohio  Dollree Mapp v State of Ohio  Argued: March 29, 1961  Decided: June 19, 1961.

Street Law Fourth Amendment Rights

MAPP V. OHIO Rachel Simmons. Background & Freedom at Issue  The 4 th and 14 th Amendments  With reasonable suspicion of a bomb at the house, the police.

By: Holden Luce.  Mapp was accused of harboring a criminal involved in a bombing case.  The Officers confronted Mapp at her home and demanded that she.

Landmark Supreme Court Cases: Mr. Blough Academic Civics.

The Bill of Rights The First Fundamental Changes of the Constitution.

Mapp vs. Ohio B. The Court decided that the Exclusionary Rule, excluding evidence taken illegally from a search, is not admissible in court. EXPANDS our.

Homework: Read/OL 14.3 for Monday FrontPage: Have 3 worksheets on your desk.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961).

Mapp v. Ohio (1961) FACTS OF THE CASE: On May 23, 1957, police officers in near Cleveland, Ohio received information that a suspect in a bombing case,

4 th Amendment Timothy Bian, Myris Kramsch, Mazen Elhosseiny, Daniel Alday, John Scott, Kartik Raju.

Mapp vs. Ohio Logan Hamling And Kale Krieger Logan Hamling And Kale Krieger.

Legal Studies * Mr. Marinello ARRESTS AND WARRANTS.

Essential Question How does the Constitution protect the rights of the accused?

Chapter 20 RIGHT TO EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. 1) December _____________ refused to move to the back of the bus in Montgomery, Alabama It was city law.

Vernonia School District V Acton Oregon-Late 1980’s school officials recognized higher rate of drug use among athletes Oregon-Late 1980’s school officials.

The Fourth Amendment COURT CASES. What does the Fourth Amendment say? The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,

Criminal Justice Process: The Investigation The criminal justice process includes everything that happens to a person from the moment of arrest, through.

DUE PROCESS. Procedural Due Process v. Substantive Due Process Procedural follows a set procedure, the same for all the accused Such as counsel, unreasonable.

U.S. Supreme Court Cases Makayla Putman, Matthew Esken, Megan Rich, & Sam Fagel.

LECTURE 4: THE CONSTITUTION AND DUE PROCESS. The Constitution and Due Process The US Constitution set out how US laws are passed and enforced. – The legislative.

By: Andrew O. Brianna T. Lisa V. Kassi Timothy S.

Court Cases that Protect the Individual Citizen

Landmark Supreme Court Cases:

Limiting the Right of Search

Rules of Evidence.

Landmark Supreme Court Cases:

Landmark Supreme Court Cases:

Landmark Cases Mapp v. Ohio Tinker v. Des Moines Miranda v. Arizona

Mapp v. Ohio (1961) 367 U.S. 643.

By Maura Hertig, Ryan Hornickel, and Mia Lerner

The Courts and the Constitution

Part of the 4th Amendment

By Michael Cleary Period 8 10/3/13 College Business Law Mr. Como

Name that tune! Raise your hand if you know how to answer BOTH of the questions below. Artist? How does this song relate to what we’re learning today?

Important Court Cases of the 20th Century

Liberalism vs. Conservatism

YouTube - The Declaration of Independence

LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASES:

Chapter 16 Constitutional Right to a Fair Trial

Michelle D. Rivera 7th period November 15, 2011

The Rights of American Citizens

By: Arron Ferguson Ignacio Leibas

Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures

October 16, 2018 Modern Issues in the U.S. Agenda:

4th Admendment Mapp Vs Ohio

THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS: THE INVESTIGATIVE PHASE

Defendants’ Rights Edgenuity Lessons 3.4 and 3.5.

Rochin, schmerber & mapp

4th Amendment: Search and Seizure

The Warren Court AP US History.

Alexzandria Rosser 469 U.S. 325 (1985)

Constitutional Rights: Protections and Limitations

New Jersey v. T.L.O. 469 US 325 (1985) By Sage Miller.

The 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments

Presentation transcript:

Evan Parkinson and Ryan Richmond Mapp Vs. Ohio Evan Parkinson and Ryan Richmond

Why To try to convict Mapp and then later try to arrest Shondor Birns, a kingpin of Cleveland's racketeers. In the process, the police acquired evidence by violating the 4th amendment.

The Main Parties

Dollree Mapp Otherwise known as “The Rosa Parks of the 4th amendment”, Dollree Mapp was an african american woman living in Cleveland. She got involved with boxers and racketeers and one of those racketeers were Shon Birns, a kingpin in Cleveland's illegal gambling.

Ohio The Cleveland police are really at fault here, but it was the state that was recognized as the villain. The police had suspected Mapp of working with Shon Birns, so they illegally broke into her home and searched and gathered evidence in violation of the 4th amendment.

When and Where This case officially started on March 29 and ended on June 19, 1961. It started in a Ohio court, then as things progressed, it made its way to the Supreme Court.

Why to the Supreme Court When this case started in a little courthouse in Ohio, once the violation of the 4th amendment by the police was brought up, the case was sent to the Supreme Court.

Today in History During the time of the incident, and the trial, the United States was right in the middle of The Cold War/ The Red Scare. This resulted in a lot of random searches and accusations of U.S. citizens.

The Decision The case ruling was 6-3 in favor of Mapp. She went home with a clean slate.

Why the Decision The state was hiding evidence that they found in the search of Mapp’s house that was retrieved in violation of the 4th amendment, and the search was without a warrant which is against the 4th amendment as well.

Opposing Viewpoints The Police were given an anonymous tip that they could find Virgil Ogletree at Mapp’s house and she wouldn’t let them in without a warrant several hours later police bust down the doors without a warrant but felt like they were in the right not the wrong. After the initial trial the state later asked and got denied a retrial in 1961.

Our Feelings We feel in favor of Mapp as well. This case was detrimental in the upbringing African Americans and women. It also set tougher regulations for the police in investigating and arresting.

No. 11 This is the same as the last slide. It was a historical moment for women and African Americans everywhere.