Search and Seizure By Spencer “King of Four Square” Milliner Amazingly Interesting Cases Explained!

Think of the Children Slide

Mapp v. Ohio On May 23, 1957 officers tried to gain entry into Dolree Mapp’s home, under suspicion that she was harboring a criminal (Virgil Ogletree) involved in the recent bombing of Don “The Kid” King’s residence, as well as possessing illegal betting equipment. Mapp refused entry until she could receive advice from her lawyer.

After being informed by her lawyer to not allow the officers to enter without seeing a warrant, Mapp continued to refuse their entry. Although this seemed to deter the police, three hours later, after reinforcements had arrived, they forcibly entered Mapp’s home. At this time Mapp’s attorney Greene arrived at the residence, but was barred entrance by the officers. Mapp v. Ohio Cont.

After Mapp asked for a warrant the officers quickly waved a paper in front of her, which she then grabbed (This paper was indeed not a warrant). In response to this, the officers handcuffed Mapp for belligerency. Although the officers did find Ogletree, he proved to be of no use to the bombing case. Not finding betting equipment, the officers did find a number of pornographic materials as well as betting slips. Mapp v. Ohio Cont. Cont.

Possession of pornographic materials was illegal in Ohio, and Mapp was charged with a misdemeanor gambling charge and a felony obscenity charge. Later convicted of the obscenity charge and sentenced to serve up to seven years in the Ohio Reformatory for Women, Mapp appealed her case three times, eventually to the Ohio Supreme Court who upheld the conviction. Strangely enough, the Court admitted that the evidence was obtained with an “unlawful” search, but was still admissible. Mapp v. Ohio Cont. Cont. Cont.

The Court cited the U.S. Supreme Court ruling of Wolf v. People of the State of Colorado in their decision, stating that the exclusionary rule, which prevents improperly obtained evidence from being introduced in federal court, need not be applied in state court proceedings. Mapp then took her case to the U.S. Supreme Court, appealing on First Amendment grounds. Mapp’s lawyers argued that Ohio had violated her right to freedom of thought and expression by making the possession of obscene materials illegal, as well as that the search and seizure conducted was unlawful. Mapp v. Ohio Cont. Cont. Cont. Cont.

The American Civil Liberties Union also filed a brief arguing for a reconsideration of Wolf v. People of the State of Colorado. The Supreme Court had actually been waiting for a chance to overturn Wolf, and it seized the opportunity. With a four-vote plurality, the Supreme Court overturned Wolf, which meant that the exclusionary rule was now applied to states. Mapp v. Ohio Cont. Cont. Cont. Cont. Cont.

The Supreme Court, largely ignoring the First Amendment reasons for the appeal, declared that any and all evidence obtained by search and seizure in violation of the Constitution was inadmissible in state court, and thus ruled in favor of Mapp in a 6-3 decision. As a result, state police and courts are obliged to follow the Fourth Amendment prohibition against illegal search and seizure. Hurray! Mapp v. Ohio (Cont.)^6

Born on February 29 th, Pochacco is an athletic dog from the Sanrio Universe. He enjoys playing basketball, soccer, and loves eating carrots! Pochacco Slide

Terry v. Ohio (Not Cont.) While on duty Martin McFadden, a veteran Cleveland detective, observed two individuals on a street corner. These men proceeded along an identical route and stared at the same store window repeatedly, and were soon joined by a third man. McFadden suspected the trio of “casing” the store for a possible burglary, and he approached them. After identifying himself as a policeman and receiving little cooperation from the trio, he frisked one of the men, whose name was Terry.

Terry v. Ohio (Yes Cont.) McFadden discovered a gun in Terry’s overcoat, and after ordering the men to enter a store and face a wall with their hands raised, he removed Terry’s pistol and found another revolver on one of the other men. McFadden had the store owner call the police and placed the three men under arrest for carrying concealed weapons. The trio were convicted for carrying concealed weapons and sentenced to one to three years in prison. They appealed this conviction reasoning that McFadden performed an unlawful search and seizure. If this was true, the seized pistols should not have been admitted in court.

Terry v. Ohio Cont. Conch. In Terry’s trial the court denied the motion to suppress the evidence on the grounds that McFadden had cause to suspicion due to the men’s behavior, as well as the right to pat them down if he had reasonable cause to believe they were armed. The court made a distinction between a stop and an arrest as well as a frisk and a search for evidence. After an appellate court affirmed the verdict and the state supreme court dismissed the appeal, the case came before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Terry v. Ohio Cont. Conch. Dot. In an 8-1 vote, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the stop and frisk practice. Although McFadden did not have probable cause for a full search, it was concluded that a stop and frisk search was appropriate for the situation. As a result, the method used within this case (the Terry frisk) has become a standard by which officers can measure the lawfulness of searches performed without a warrant.

Oh goodness how did this get here I am not good with computers

Illinois v. Caballes Illinois State Trooper Daniel Gillette stopped Caballes on an interstate highway for speeding (71mph in a 65mph zone) and then radioed the police dispatcher to report the stop. Craig Graham, a member of the Illinois State Police Drug Interdiction Team, overheard this transmission. Graham then proceeded to the scene with his narcotics-detection dog. When Graham arrived, Gillette was in the process of writing Caballes a warning. Graham then walked his dog around Caballes’ car, which then alerted the officers of Caballes’ trunk. Caballes’!

Illinois v. Caballes Ultra Investigating Caballes’ trunk, the officers discovered in the area of $250,000 worth of marijuana and promptly arrested Caballes. This entire incident took less than ten minutes. Although Caballes moved to suppress the seized evidence, the judge denied the motion. After being convicted, Caballes was sentenced to twelve years in prison and a $256,136 fine. Caballes understandably decided to appeal.

Illinois v. Caballes Ultra Supreme Although the Appellate Court affirmed the verdict, Caballes second appeal paid off. In a 4-3 vote, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the decision. The ISC concluded that since the canine search was performed without any facts or suspicion of drug activity, it escalated the routine traffic stop into a drug investigation. The case was then brought upon the U.S. Supreme Court, which in a super secret surprise decision reversed the Illinois Supreme Court’s reversal. Golly!

Illinois v. Caballes Self Serve Only Justice Stevens explained in his Court opinion that the actual invasion of Caballes’ privacy was negligible. “A dog sniff conducted during a concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess does not violate the Fourth Amendment.” As drug-sniffing dogs are trained only to detect contraband materials, items no person is legally allowed to possess, they are not considered to cause an invasion of privacy.

Illinois v. Caballes High Octane The legality of drug-detecting canines was not the only issue the Supreme Court concerned itself with however. An otherwise legal seizure can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond a reasonable time. If Caballes was detained longer than necessary by Gillette so as to buy time for the dog sniffing, the seizure would have become unconstitutional. As this was not the case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed Caballes guilt in a 6-2 decision.

Illinois v. Caballes Omega As a result, the use of drug sniffing dogs is now permitted on traffic stops. However, several states have passed legislation to prevent the willy-nilly use of these canines.

Color in Fun - Scooby-Doo Scooby-Doo, although excellently trained to sniff and discover a wide range of foodstuffs, has no capabilities or history of drug sniffing. According to Shaggy, anyway.

Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark super scary illustration slide