MAPP V. OHIO

   MAPP V. OHIO, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)

1. Who are the following parties in the case?

 • Plaintiff
• Defendant
• Appellant
• Respondent
2. What is the procedural history followed?

3. What are the facts about the case?

4. The Issue: why did she appeal? What issues did she raise on appeal?

5. What was the court’s holding & rationale?

 

The adoption and implementation of the 4^th amendment by the Supreme Court in US provides that the constitutional rights should not be violated. The amendment stipulates that, citizens should have privacy and security in their houses, persons, and papers against unreasonable searches. Sanctions and penalties could be imposed on state officers who violate these constitutional rights, specified in the amendment. Mapp v. Ohio is a case that demonstrates the violation of the law and the subsequent expulsion of the offenders. In this case, the offenders are the state police officers (Keenan, 1998). They should be effective and fair in handling matters pertaining to citizen’s constitutional rights.

The parties

In the case, the plaintiff is the state/country where the offence occurred. The police officers working for Ohio State violated the constitutional rights of the defendant, Mrs. Mapp.  Her constitutional rights were violated by the police officers who forced their way in to her house without a search warrant. She is also the appellant; she appealed the case at the appellate court when she was convicted for possession of illegal material. According to Price (2010), the appellate court found her guilty and convicted her of the same charges. She further appealed her case at the Supreme Court where she was now referred to as the respondent- the defendant at the Supreme Court.

Procedural history

The Mapp v. Ohio case, was procedural, Mrs. Mapp was first convicted at the state trial court where she was found guilty. Being unsatisfied with the ruling, she appealed the case at the appellate courts, where she was also found guilty and prosecuted. She eventually referred the case to the Supreme Court where the court ruled out that the evidence was obtained illegally and therefore her charges were dropped.

Facts about the case

Zottie (2005) explains that Ohio police officers illegally forced their entry and search in to Mrs. Mapp’s house without a search warrant. They suspected that a bomb suspect in possession of illegal equipments could be in her house. She demanded for a search warrant before allowing them in to the house. The police officers left and returned later on with a paper disguising it as a warrant. They forced their way in to the house where they neither found the suspect nor the illegal equipments. However, when searching, they found illegal pornographic materials in her possession. The police arrested her and was later charged and prosecuted for possession of illegal materials.

The reason for appealing the case.

The unsatisfactory ruling by the trial court, made Mrs. Mapp to appeal the case at the appellate court and subsequently at the Supreme Court (Steward, 1983). She argued that the police forced their way in to her house where they obtained the materials illegally. She complained that her constitutional rights were violated, yet she is being prosecuted.

The Court’s holding & rationale.

The Supreme Court applied the 4^th amendment provisions where it held that the police committed misconduct and acted improperly towards the respondent (Long, 2006). The conviction against the respondent was eventually dismissed by the Court. The court held that the lower court judges failed to address the illegality of the search, and thus the evidence was excluded. The conviction was overturned with the rationale that evidence violating the 4^th amendment should be excluded.  Keenan (1998) states that, the amendment provides that unconstitutional evidence can not be used to convict a suspect. Furthermore unreasonable and illegal searches would be disregarded.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

        REFERENCES

Keenan, J. F. 1998, “The proper balance: Exclusion of evidence or expulsion of police officers” St. John’s Law Review Association. http://search.proquest.com/docview/216798043?accountid=45049 Web. 25 Sep. 2012.

Long, C. 2006, “Mapp v. Ohio: Guarding Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures”. University Press. Kansas. ISBN 0-7006-1441-9.

Price, P. J. 2010, “Mapp v. Ohio (supreme court case)” Journal Of Supreme Court History; vol.35 issue 1 p54-70.

Steward, P. 1983,  “The Road to Mapp v. Ohio and Beyond.” Columbia Law Review Association, Inc 83(6) 1365 – 1404.

Zottie, P.H. 2005, “Injustice for All: Mapp v.Ohio and the Fourth Amendment” New York. ISBN 0-8204-7267-0.