0% found this document useful (0 votes)
53 views3 pages

Dollree Mapp V Ohio Case Summary

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3

Running head: MAPP v OHIO CASE 1

Dollree Mapp v Ohio Case Summary

Name

Institution

Date
2

Introduction

The story dates back to the year 1957 when police officers broke into Dollree Mapp’s

house in search of a bomb blast suspect. This search was regarded as unconstitutional under

the search and seizure amendment. The search followed a scenario when the suspect was

alleged to be engaging in a gambling business, which one of the corps believed that Dollree

was too a participant hence the suspect could be hiding in her house. The police officers then

conducted a search and seizure into Mapp’s house without giving her any valid arrest warrant.

Consequently, the police officers failed to get the suspect in the house as they expected before.

However, the officers gathered some other documents, books and pictures that were against

the constitutional stipulations on matters of infidelity. Dollree Mapp was then arrested and

prosecuted on March 29, 1961 for possession of unlawful items by the Ohio states court. A

ruling that entitled Mapp for seven years jail term together with a fine of $2000. Fortunately,

the ruling was again overturned by the supreme court on June 19, 1961.

Backgrounds for the ruling

A ruling made by Tom Clerk on June 19, 1961 dismissed the Ohio district court ruling

that sentenced Mapp to a seven years jail term with $2000 fine. Clerk categorically mentioned

that the initial ruling didn’t take into full account the Fourth Amendment of the constitution,

which defines the use of evidence obtained against the Fourth Amendment as illegal. In

addition to his comments, the right to privacy was not incorporated besides the exclusion of

the federal exclusionary rule.


3

Significance of the ruling

The Dollree Mapp’s ruling of June 19, 1961 set a footprint for the United States’

criminal procedures. From the ruling, the supreme court established protection against

unreasonable searches and seizures. In the ruling, the supreme court established that evidence

obtained against the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in the law courts for prosecutions.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy