This is a landmark, history altering instance that A.L. Kearns, and Walter L. Green who represented Miss Mapp as the Appellant ( U.S. Supreme Court Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S 643 ( 1961 ) , 1961 ) . Gertrude Bauer Mahon and John T. Corrigan argued the cause for the appellee in this instance which is the State of Ohio ( U.S. Supreme Court Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S 643 ( 1961 ) , 1961 ) . Miss Mapp sought an appellant tribunal to reexamine the instance on the land that the test tribunal justice made a error. In this instance Miss Mapp ( the losing party ) and her lawyers sought a writ of certiorari for the United States Supreme Court to reexamine the instance. After a successful request, Miss Mapp ‘s lawyers directed the Court of Appeals to direct up the test tribunal transcript, gesture documents, and miscellaneous legal paperss to the United States Supreme Court. The commendation to the instance of Mapp v. Ohio is 367 U.S. 643, entreaty from the Supreme Court of Ohio commendation no. 236 ( U.S. Supreme Court Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S 643 ( 1961 ) , 1961 ) .
The U.S Constitution is ever at attacked, and deceived by the many work forces and adult females who take an curse to protect it. Throughout many decennaries we have seen hemorrhoids and hemorrhoids of instances built up that challenge the freedom and rights of our people built by the Constitution. When our initiation Fathers created the Constitution, they gave every American citizen rights to be protected. They gave us the right of life, autonomy and the chase of felicity. We are besides protected the Bill of Rights that ‘s topographic points restrictions on authorities control over the people of the United States. In this instance, we will see how the really constabulary, who are supposed to protect and function the populace and maintain our communities safe, have taken advantage of their authorization and ignored procedural jurisprudence. This instance besides involves the Fourth Amendment to protect against unreasonable hunt and ictus. The Fourth Amendment provides:
“ The right of the people to be secure in their individuals, houses, documents, and effects, against unreasonable hunts and ictuss, shall non be violated, and no Warrants shall publish but upon likely cause, supported by Oath or Affirmation, and peculiarly depicting the topographic point to be searched and the individuals or things to be seized ( Scheb & A ; Scheb II, 2008 ) . ”
In Cleveland Ohio on May 23, 1957, three constabulary officers arrived at the Miss Mapp ‘s place of abode after they had received information that a individual who was wanted in inquiry about being involved in a recent bombardment was concealing out at her place ( U.S. Supreme Court Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S 643 ( 1961 ) , 1961 ) . It was besides indicated that there was a batch of policy gear being stored in the place ( U.S. Supreme Court Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S 643 ( 1961 ) , 1961 ) . The plaintiff in error, Miss Mapp occupied the two-family private abode with her girl but lived on the top floor ( U.S. Supreme Court Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S 643 ( 1961 ) , 1961 ) . When geting at the house of Miss Mapp, the officers knocked at the door and demanded entree but the plaintiff in error, after calling her lawyer, refused them entry without first seeking a hunt warrant ( U.S. Supreme Court Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S 643 ( 1961 ) , 1961 ) . After non being allowed to come in the place, the constabulary officer advised central offices of the fortunes and they began supervising of the plaintiff in error ‘s house ( U.S. Supreme Court Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S 643 ( 1961 ) , 1961 ) .
Three hours had passed by and officers one time once more they pushed for and needed entryway into the house, this clip with four other officers in attending ( Case Brief: Mapp v. Ohio, 2005 ) . As she had declined earlier, Miss Mapp still did non consent to them come ining so they proceeded to come in anyhow by force ( Case Brief: Mapp v. Ohio, 2005 ) . Soon after the constabulary gained entree to the house, the plaintiff in error ‘s lawyer showed up at the scene but was non allowed contact with his client ( Case Brief: Mapp v. Ohio, 2005 ) . The officers besides refused his demand to see the hunt warrant that would lawfully allow them entryway to her topographic point of residence. ( Case Brief: Mapp v. Ohio, 2005 ) . Why was the lawyer non able to hold entree to his lawyer? Even though she was non arrested, he was still at the scene desiring to talk to his client. It troubles me as to why he was non allowed entree to her.
Miss Mapp, the plaintiff in error began to oppugn the officers about the warrant and insisted that she wanted to see it because she did non experience that the officers had a warrant in their ownership, and that they were being oblique. ( Case Brief: Mapp v. Ohio, 2005 ) . Miss Mapp thought that the officers were being fallacious and corrupt. The officer who claimed to hold the warrant flashed a piece of paper in her face, at which point the Miss Mapp so grabbed and stuffed it into her shirt ( Case Brief: Mapp v. Ohio, 2005 ) . She did non catch it in order to destruct the supposed warrant but she thought it was a simple piece of paper that they claimed to be a warrant, and they would allow her see it so she knew they were in her house unlawfully. Miss Mapp began to fight with the officers and finally the officers recovered the piece of paper, and as a effect, they handcuffed Miss Mapp because she was being aggressive and unmanageable. ( U.S. Supreme Court Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S 643 ( 1961 ) , 1961 ) . In handlocks, the plaintiff in error was taken to the upstairs and into her sleeping room where the officers proceeded to seek a chest of drawers, a thorax of shortss, a cupboard and a bag ( U.S. Supreme Court Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S 643 ( 1961 ) , 1961 ) . They besides looked into a exposure album and went through personal documents and certification belonging to the Miss Mapp ( U.S. Supreme Court Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S 643 ( 1961 ) , 1961 ) . As the constabulary proceeded with their hunt of the house they discovered a bole in the cellar ( Cooke, 2002 ) . When the officers opened the bole they found stuffs they considered to be obscene ( Cooke, 2002 ) . They confiscated all the stuffs and charged Miss Mapp, the plaintiff in error, with the ownership of obscene stuff, and took her into detention ( Cooke, 2002 ) . Now from this minute I was non able to happen information about where her lawyer was at that clip and what portion he was able to play in the immediate procedure. Another thing that has been drifting about in my caput, and believing as a defence lawyer, how did they know that the stuffs belonged to her? She lived on the top floor of the house and the bole was in the cellar. What is she had person remaining with her and upon go forthing forgot to take this bole with them. The officers treated Miss Mapp as though she was guilty even before she was wrongfully convicted in a test tribunal.
Miss Mapp was indicted on the charge and went to test ; but there was ne’er a hunt warrant provided to the tribunal that the constabulary claimed that had in order to forcefully derive entry into Miss Mapp ‘s place ( Cooke, 2002 ) . Despite this, the grounds obtained illicitly was presented during the instance, and the logical thinking for this was that Miss Mapp did non hold the protection from the exclusionary regulation as stated in the instance of Wolf v. Colorado ( Cooke, 2002 ) . The tribunal held, “ that in a prosecution in a State tribunal for a State offense the Fourteenth Amendment does non prohibit the admittance of grounds obtained by an unreasonable hunt and ictus ” ( U.S. Supreme Court Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S 643 ( 1961 ) , 1961 ) . The Fourteenth amendment allocates other amendments to be applied to the provinces through the procedure of selective incorporation ( Cooke, 2002 ) .
The due procedure clauses in the fundamental law had been applied to provinces through selective incorporation ( Cooke, 2002 ) . It bothers me that her due procedure rights were non taken into consideration, and were merely considered. Miss Mapp had the right to a just test. Unfortunately, in this instance the exclusionary regulation had non yet been integrated which meant that citizens did hold the rights against hunt and ictuss but there was no manner to implement these constitutional rights, or reprimand those who have dishonored those rights ( Cooke, 2002 ) . So the issue in this instance is whether or non the obscene stuff attained during the hunt and ictus was a misdemeanor of the Fourth Amendment and if it would be admissible in tribunal without a valid warrant, or if the United States Supreme Court would turn over the determination against Miss Mapp ( Case Brief: Mapp v. Ohio, 2005 ) . Besides it will be of import for the province of Ohio, if the opinion was reversed, to understand why they had violated Miss Mapp ‘s rights and protections, and why they allowed the test and strong belief to keep cognizing that there was non a warrant to come in her place.
The United States Supreme Court reversed the finding of fact of the Ohio State Supreme Court observing that, “ constitutional commissariats for the security of individual and belongings should be liberally construedaˆ¦.It is the responsibility of the tribunals to be alert for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any furtive invasions thereon ” ( U.S. Supreme Court Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S 643 ( 1961 ) , 1961 ) . All grounds collected in hunts and ictuss in misdemeanors of the Federal Constitution is inadmissible in a condemnable test in a province tribunal ( U.S. Supreme Court Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S 643 ( 1961 ) , 1961 ) . Were the test Judgess in the Ohio tribunals unaware of this, or were they protecting the authorization of the officers that were involved in this instance?
Mr. Justice Clark delivered the sentiment of the tribunal. He stated specifically covering with the usage of grounds unconstitutionally seized. The Court concluded:
“ If letters and private paperss can therefore be seized and held and used in grounds against a citizen accused of an discourtesy, the protection of the Fourth Amendment declaring his right to be secure against such hunts and ictuss is of no value, and, so far as those therefore placed are concerned, might every bit good be stricken from the Constitution. The attempts of the tribunals and their functionaries to convey the guilty to penalty, praiseworthy as they are, are non to be aided by the forfeit of those great rules established by old ages of enterprise and enduring which have resulted in their incarnation in the cardinal jurisprudence of the land. ” ( U.S. Supreme Court Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S 643 ( 1961 ) , 1961 ) .
It was moreover stated by the Court that the Fourth Amendment puts the tribunals of the United States and Federal functionaries, in their exercising of their domination and authorization, under restrictions and restraints ( U.S. Supreme Court Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S 643 ( 1961 ) , 1961 ) . It is hard to understand that this instance made it all the manner to the United States Supreme Court, these seem like simple regulations that were merely disregarded.
Justice Clark illistrated that the stuffs were without a uncertainty introduced into grounds for the prosecution for the plaintiff in error, and were so obtained in illegal hunt and ictus ( Case Brief: Mapp v. Ohio, 2005 ) . Officers broke down the entryway to Miss Mapp ‘s house and entered to happen the obscene stuffs and violated province jurisprudence ( Case Brief: Mapp v. Ohio, 2005 ) . While seeking the house the officers participated in physical affraies with Miss Mapp and so detained her ( Case Brief: Mapp v. Ohio, 2005 ) . A Fourth Amendment misdemeanor would hold occurred if the plaintiff in error was detained instantly as the officers entered the premises, and asked her to indicate out and turn up the stuffs in inquiry ( Case Brief: Mapp v. Ohio, 2005 ) . The breach of “ personal security and personal autonomy ” is the nucleus of a Fourth Amendment misdemeanor ( Case Brief: Mapp v. Ohio, 2005 ) . Justices Black and Douglas concur ( Case Brief: Mapp v. Ohio, 2005 ) .
The dissenting sentiment was written by Justice Harlan who was united by Justices Frankfurter and Whittaker ( U.S. Supreme Court Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S 643 ( 1961 ) , 1961 ) . They stated that an issue of legality can be recognized by detecting whether or non a Fourteenth Amendment misdemeanor besides occurred in this instance ( Case Brief: Mapp v. Ohio, 2005 ) . The Fourteenth Amendment grants the same rights as the Fourth Amendment to the citizens of each province and prevents the province from taking action against them if there is a clear instance of due procedure misdemeanor. ( Case Brief: Mapp v. Ohio, 2005 ) . A misdemeanor of this basic principal would supply for a misdemeanor of the Fourth, or Fourteenth Amendments, and any grounds seized would non be allowable in a tribunal of jurisprudence, as covered by the exclusionary regulation, irrespective of the legality of grounds ( Case Brief: Mapp v. Ohio, 2005 ) . “ In fact one can take it a measure further and say that it is a misdemeanor of the Federal Constitution to motivate fright into people by doing them believe that Big Brother is watching their every move ” ( Case Brief: Mapp v. Ohio, 2005 ) . The misdemeanor of this basic rule would supply for a misdemeanor of the Fourteenth and Fourth Amendments, which would reason that any grounds seized would non be allowed in tribunal, as covered by the exclusionary regulation, irrespective of the legality of the grounds ( Case Brief: Mapp v. Ohio, 2005 ) .
The instance affecting Miss Mapp has cemented the ways, every bit good as changed the ways instances are handled in tribunals today when covering with the Fourth Amendent rights and issues sing exclusionary regulations. Now constabularies are restricted by the exclusionary regulation which will non let them to prehend grounds and acknowledge it into grounds if seized illicitly, and supply them with procedural restraints on deriving grounds. If officers are truly genuinely seeking to convey a instance against person they are traveling to follow proper processs in order to garentee grounds will be admissible.What I thought was disturbing was that when the lawyer for Miss Mapp arrived on location he was denied entree to his client. The exclusionary regulation is a judicially created regulation that prohibits the usage of illicitly obtained grounds in a condemnable prosecution of the individuals whose right were violated by the constabulary in obtaining that grounds ( Scheb & A ; Scheb II, 2008 ) .
“ In 1914, in the instance of Weeks v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court foremost held that grounds obtained through an improper hunt and ictus could non be used to convict a individual of a federal offense ” ( Scheb & A ; Scheb II, 2008 ) . The principle is to discourage illegal hunts and ictuss by constabularies and with the consequence of implementing constitutional demands ( Scheb & A ; Scheb II, 2008 ) . This instance of Mapp v. Ohio and determination has an immediate consequence throughout the state. For illustration, in New York City, officers did non worry about obtaining a hunt warrant prior to the freshly set case in point of Mapp, but the twelvemonth after the judgement, officers were on their game acquiring warrants and obtained more than eight hundred hunt warrants to prehend grounds ( Scheb & A ; Scheb II, 2008 ) . “ In the instance of Wong Sun v. United States, a new philosophy which was implemented was that any grounds seized illicitly without a warrant would be fruit of the toxicant tree and would inadmissible ” ( Scheb & A ; Scheb II, 2008 ) . The exclusionary regulation is justified by the demand to discourage constabularies misconduct ( Scheb & A ; Scheb II, 2008 ) .
This instance had a particular involvement to me because I am from Ohio, and composing this paper has given me non merely more cognition on the rights of each person provided by Fourth Amendment, but has allowed me to understand other instances that were affected by this case in point. At the clip this judgement was reversed by the United States Supreme Court, I ca n’t assist but believe about what Miss Mapp had thought about altering history throughout the state, and how this instance is one of the most of import landmark determinations.