1. By Maura Hertig, Ryan Hornickel, and Mia Lerner
Mapp vs Ohio(1861) 367 U.S 643
By Maura Hertig, Ryan Hornickel, and Mia Lerner

2. What is the constitutional issue involved?
It was in violation of the Fourth Amendment which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and in this case the police searched Mapp’s house without a warrant.

3. Who were the parties involved in the case?
The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Mapp v. Ohio case:
Dollree Mapp – the plaintiff
The State of Ohio – the defendant

4. When and where did the case take place?
This case took place in Cleveland Ohio and in 1961

5. What events led up to the case going before the Supreme Court?
The case originated in Cleveland, Ohio, when police officers forced their way into Dollree Mapp's house without a proper search warrant. Police believed that Mapp was harboring a suspected bomber, and demanded entry.

6. What court or courts heard this before the Supreme court
The Ohio Supreme Court was the only court to hear Mapp’s case prior to the Supreme court.

7. Historical Context: What was happening in the world that this case needed to be tried?
People were already having their rights violated so when Dollree had her 4th right violated, there was an uproar. The prelude to the counterculture was exemplified in small examples like this. People used to believe in the government. They now had reservations about governing bodies after Dollree and others like him in society had their “rights violated”.

8. What was the Supreme Court’s ruling/decision?
It was ruled that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures,” is inadmissible in state courts

9. What was the reason behind the court's decision?
The reason was that the search was in violation of the Fourth Amendment

10. Opposing viewpoints
People were just receiving the media coverage and they had started to lose faith in their government and didn’t trust people were being told the truth anymore. So this was one of the first cases that would be on the news and a lot of people would be watching and thinking that the police storming in and violating their rights would make people distrust the government even more.

11. How do you feel about the ruling? why?
The ruling of the court was fair because, the police did not have a correct warrant for them searching the house and vehicles; which is a violation of the privacy that Mapp had as an American. Also Mapp was arrested on a different charge than what the police was origanally looking for when they arrived on the scene.

12. Dissenting Opinion
A dissenting opinion is one or two people go against the majority opinion. In the Mapp v Ohio case, Mapp was found with objects deemed illegal in the state of Ohio, which she deserves to be penalized for in a court of law. There should be an example made from Mapp, if something illegal is done, there must be consequences for their actions. Mapp should not have had been in possession of these things if she did not want to be arrested in the future. This case was observed in the wrong light, this case was observed in rights of the Fourth Amendment, while it was mostly on the grounds of the First Amendment. Therefore, the trail was unfit.

13. Majority Opinion
The majority opinion of this case was in favor of Mapp, which was correct. Mapp was innocent of the crime that the police had originally accused her of. There was not even a correct warrant for the arrest. This is a violation of the rights of an American citizen, Mapp has a right to the privacy that the law gives to her. Mapp has the right of a correct warrant of her arrest and knowing what exactly she was initially questioned of.

14. The dissent vote was 3-6
The dissent was written by Justice Harlan
The rule was in favor of Mapp 6-3

15. Describe the significance of the other court cases related to your case identify the immediate impact as well as long term impact on society from this case. Why this case is considered “Landmark”
Mapp v. Ohio in 1961 impacted the type of evidence admissible in court, according to About.com. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that evidence acquired through illegal search and seizure was not admissible evidence. Justices used the Fourth Amendment to find in favor of Mapp. In 1984, United States v. Leon restricted this ruling to exclude seizures made while the officer acted in good faith. Mapp vs Ohio was a landmark United States Supreme Court case regarding the Fourth Amendemt of the United States Constitution as it relates to crimial procedure, The court held that evidence that was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment could not be used against someone in the State of Federal court