The officers forcibly entered Mapp's home without a warrant and seized obscene materials, leading to her conviction. Mapp appealed arguing this violated the 4th Amendment. The Supreme Court held that all evidence obtained through searches and seizures in violation of the 4th Amendment is inadmissible in state courts. This made the exclusionary rule, which prevented illegally obtained evidence from being used in federal court, also apply to state courts through the 14th Amendment. The ruling overruled an earlier case and established that the 4th Amendment applies to state search and seizure practices.
The officers forcibly entered Mapp's home without a warrant and seized obscene materials, leading to her conviction. Mapp appealed arguing this violated the 4th Amendment. The Supreme Court held that all evidence obtained through searches and seizures in violation of the 4th Amendment is inadmissible in state courts. This made the exclusionary rule, which prevented illegally obtained evidence from being used in federal court, also apply to state courts through the 14th Amendment. The ruling overruled an earlier case and established that the 4th Amendment applies to state search and seizure practices.
The officers forcibly entered Mapp's home without a warrant and seized obscene materials, leading to her conviction. Mapp appealed arguing this violated the 4th Amendment. The Supreme Court held that all evidence obtained through searches and seizures in violation of the 4th Amendment is inadmissible in state courts. This made the exclusionary rule, which prevented illegally obtained evidence from being used in federal court, also apply to state courts through the 14th Amendment. The ruling overruled an earlier case and established that the 4th Amendment applies to state search and seizure practices.
The officers forcibly entered Mapp's home without a warrant and seized obscene materials, leading to her conviction. Mapp appealed arguing this violated the 4th Amendment. The Supreme Court held that all evidence obtained through searches and seizures in violation of the 4th Amendment is inadmissible in state courts. This made the exclusionary rule, which prevented illegally obtained evidence from being used in federal court, also apply to state courts through the 14th Amendment. The ruling overruled an earlier case and established that the 4th Amendment applies to state search and seizure practices.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
PSCI 4230
24 January 2022
Alejandro Castellanos
Mapp v. Ohio 367 US 643 (1961)
Facts:
Officers arrived at the home of Mapp in response to a tip and demanded entrance. Mapp denied unwarranted entrance to her home. Later, with more officers present, they forcibly entered her home and began to search her belongings. After providing a false warrant, Mapp was put in handcuffs for “belligerent” behavior. While looking through her personal belongings, obscene materials were found in her possession, and she would be convicted of knowingly having lewd and lascivious books, pictures and photographs.
Procedural History:
Mapp appealed the conviction to the Ohio Supreme Court, which sustained the conviction. Mapp then appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Issue:
Were the confiscated materials protected from seizure by the Fourth Amendment?
Supreme Court Holding:
Yes. In a 6-to-3 majority decision the court held that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in a state court.
Reasoning:
Illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible in state court, as it directly violates the 4 th Amendment. Using Weeks v. United States, 232 US 383, as precedent, no evidence obtained in an unreasonable search and seizure could be used against in federal court.
Significance:
This case set the precedent that the federal exclusionary rule now applies to states through the application of the 14th Amendment. Additionally, the court overruled the original ruling in Wolf v. Colorado, 338 US 25.
United States of America Ex Rel. Alvin Clark v. James F. Maroney, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 339 F.2d 710, 3rd Cir. (1965)
United States of America Ex Rel. Joseph Coffey, Relator-Appellee v. Hon. Edward M. Fay, As Warden, Green Haven Prison, Stormville, New York, 344 F.2d 625, 2d Cir. (1965)
