1. Mapp v Ohio By: Gavin Koonts 10/27/13 Block 2

3. Mapp v Ohio  Dollree Mapp v State of Ohio  Argued: March 29, 1961  Decided: June 19, 1961

4. Case Overview  3 policemen showed up to Mapp’s house looking for a bombing suspect they believed was in the house. Mapp called her lawyer, who told her to ask for a warrant. The police couldn’t produce a warrant, so they called in reinforcements to surround the house. Later, 5 policemen bust down the door to gain entry. When Mapp asked for a warrant, they showed her a piece of paper, which she took to look at later. The officer then held her down and took the piece of paper back. Mapp was handcuffed and carried upstairs.

5. Case Overview  The police searched her entire house, and didn’t find the bomber. In the search they found gambling tickets, and uncovered a chest in the basement of the house. The chest contained obscene books and nude pictures, which the police confiscated.  Mapp was tried but acquitted of the charge of gambling. She was convicted however, of owning obscene material, and sentenced.

6. Case Overview  Mapp claimed that the obscene material was owned by the prior tenant of the house, who left some of his belongings when he departed. She stored them in the basement for him if he came looking for them.  Mapp claimed that she never saw a warrant, and that they entered the house illegally.  The police officers say that they got a warrant, but a warrant was never produced in court, and there was no documentation of anyone signing one. There were conflicting statements given by the officers questioned including where the obscene materials were found.

7. Public Policy  Ohio Law States That- “No person shall knowingly have in his possession or under his control an obscene or lewd books or picture. Whoever violates this section shall be fined not less than two hundred nor more than two thousand dollars or imprisoned not less than one nor more than seven years, or both”  “The Fourth Amendment put the courts of the United States and Federal officials, in the exercise of their power and authority, under limitations and restraints and forever secured the people, their persons, houses, papers and effects against all unreasonable searches and seizures under the guise of law, and the duty of giving to it force and effect is obligatory upon all entrusted under our Federal system with the enforcement of the laws”

8. Public Policy  1 st amendment- freedom of speech, press, assembly, petition, religion  14 th Amendment- States that Federal apply to the states, and that states cannot make laws conflicting the Federal laws.

9. Arguments of the Plaintiff  The police acted illegally, and violated the constitution to find the evidence. Without a search warrant anything found within the house would be found in violation of the 4 th and 14 th amendments.  In Federal courts, if evidence is found unconstitutional then it is thrown out due to the exclusionary rule. Their argument was that, “If you cant use something in the federal court, you should not be able to walk across the street and use it in the state court.”  They believed that any evidence that was found as a result of the unconstitutional search should be thrown out of the case.

10. Argument of the Defendant  The 14 th amendment does not apply to the state courts. They said “the Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure”  They said that the 10 th amendment allowed them to run a separate court system, and that the Bill or Rights only restricts national government power.

11. Amicus Curiae Briefs  An amicus curiae brief was submitted on October 26, 1959 by the Ohio Civil Liberties Union  It argued- 1.The Ohio anti-obscenity statue violated the due process clause of the 14 th amendment to the US constitution 2.The statue interfered with privacy rights under the 4 th, 5 th, and 14 th amendment to the US constitution 3.The statue violated the equal protection clause of the 14 th amendment to the US constitution

12. Final Decision  The supreme court ruled in Mapp’s favor and excluded the evidence found against her.  It was a 6-3 decision, and it set the Precedent that- Any evidence obtained through an unconstitutional search and seizure cannot be used as evidence in State as well as Federal courts of law. Also helped broaden the reach of the constitution over the states.

13. Dissenting Opinion  Justices Harlan, Frankfurter, Whittaker  Overruled the Wolf Case, which had said that the states could use material unconstitutionally sized  Said the main point was whether § 2905.34 of the Ohio Revised Code, making criminal the mere knowing possession or control of obscene material, and under which appellant has been convicted, is consistent with the rights of free thought and expression assured against state action by the Fourteenth Amendment.  Should have focused on whether just knowing that you had obscene material was enough to convict you

14. Long Term Effects  Any information obtained unconstitutionally was excluded from court.  This made getting an actual warrant much more important to search a house. Without this case, states could use unconstitutionally sized material anytime they wanted, which means that the police don’t really need a warrant.  Expanded the constitutions power over the state court system and led to more Nationalization of the Bill of Rights

15. Bibliography  http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_03 67_0643_ZD.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_03 67_0643_ZD.html  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapp_v._Ohio‎  www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_236‎  www.streetlaw.org › Landmark Cases › Cases  www.infoplease.com ›... › Court Cases‎  www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal...to.../mapp-v-ohio-4/ www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal...to.../mapp-v-ohio-4/