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 went to search the home  They entered the house without a search warrant and arrested her  Ohio claimed that the 14 th amendment has no guarantees with the fourth amendment in the state courts  In the state courts, they claim that the 14 th amendment only limits the rights of the national government  She thought her freedom of thought in the obscenity rule was violated, but the courts disregarded that and focused on the seizure amendment

Decision of the Court  In a 6-3 decision, they overturned her conviction  They claimed the courts could not use the evidence found under the unreasonable search  The point to assuring against an unreasonable search would then be pointless  14 th amendment requires that the state courts must follow the Bill of Rights just as much as the federal government  They were at fault that they did not follow the 14 th amendment

Interpretation of Rights  Mapp v Ohio allowed for the exclusionary rule to be used the state court cases  Ultimately, under this the 4 th amendment was strengthened to the privacy of Americans  It reinforced the fact that the 14 th amendment applies to the states

Sources  court/cases/ar19.html  drama/mapp-v-ohio