By: Arron Ferguson Ignacio Leibas

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Due Process and Search and Seizure- 4 th and 14 th Amendments.

Advertisements

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

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.

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.

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

Exclusionary Rule ACG 6935/4939.

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.

Cases and Terms – Chapter 8 – Rights of the Accused Module 8 Amendments 4 -7.

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.

Objective 29l-Analyze the rights of the accused Kelsey McLaughlin and Kelsey Bois Kelsey McLaughlin and Kelsey Bois.

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

California vs. Acevedo By: Caroline Correa & Raul Perez.

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.

New Jersey v. T.L.O By Luke Wills and Caroline Weschler.

Katz v United States (1967) By Timothy Vo. Constitutional Issue Violation of fourth amendment Litigants Katz, United states Fourth amendment protect people.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated;

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

Mapp v. Ohio (1961).

The 4 th amendment. The 4 th amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported.

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.

Slide 1 III. Criminal Procedure and the Constitution A.Analyze and Define Criminal Procedure B.Analyze the provisions of the 4 th and 5 th Amendments pertaining.

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

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

Axia College of University of Phoenix ADJ 275 Criminal Procedures Exclusionary Rule.

Due Process, including no forced testimony Unwritten power is reserved to the people or the state.

Supreme Court Cases of the 60s. Mapp v. Ohio, 1961 What happened? - illegal search of home found “obscene materials”. Mapp was convicted. Brought to court.

Bellwork: Day 5 BrainPopBrainPop: Write out the seven scenarios below and decide if they are criminal cases or civil cases. Prepare your notebook!

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.

Court Cases BY: TRENT PETERSON, JOEY OLIVA, TAYLOR NORTON, AND OLIVIA PENTENCHRI.

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

Impact of Supreme Court Cases on Law Enforcement

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

The Bill of Rights The First 10 Amendments to the Constitution

Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Dollree Mapp

By Katherine Ramirez & Alicia reta

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

Thinker The first ten amendments are also known as:

Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures

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

4th Admendment Mapp Vs Ohio

4th amendment By: KEila Aguilar.

Defendants’ Rights Edgenuity Lessons 3.4 and 3.5.

Appeals Courts Losing party may be able to appeal the decision to an appeals (appellate) court Losing party will ask the court to review the decision.

Rochin, schmerber & mapp

4th Amendment: Search and Seizure

Constitutional Rights: Protections and Limitations

The 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments

Presentation transcript:

By: Arron Ferguson Ignacio Leibas Mapp vs Ohio (1961) By: Arron Ferguson Ignacio Leibas

Summary After being illegally searched, police found ‘obscene materials’ in the home of Dollree Mapp. Her plea of appeal was on the basis of the right of expression given to her in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Constitutional Issue The police illegally searched Mapp’s house without a warrant. The 4th amendment say that you are protected from “unreasonable searches and seizures”. The police officers entered the house looking for a bombing suspect or betting equipment without her permission and without a warrant. They didn’t find either or but found some pornographic material in a suitcase by her bed and it was used against her in court. She was found guilty even they found this evidence illegally. This completely contradicts the 4th amendment and the “nationalization” under the Bill of Rights 14 amendment.

The Court’s Decision The court brushed aside the 1st amendment issue for the larger issue of the illegal search of her home. The court ruled in a 6 in favor and 3 not in favor that “all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is by [the Fourth Amendment], inadmissible in a state court.” Mapp was free to go as she had been convicted of illegally obtained evidence. This decision set forth new requirements in courts to exclude any and all illegally obtained evidence.

References "Mapp v. Ohio." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Nov 20, 2015. <https://www.oyez.org/cases/1960/236> http://cdn.history.com/sites/2/2013/11/John_F_Kennedy-H.jpeg http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar19.html http://images.ulib.csuohio.edu/cdm/search/searchterm/Mapp%2C%20Dollree%20-- %20Trials%2C%20litigation%2C%20etc/field/subjec/mode/exact/conn/and/order/nosort