Mapp+v.+Ohio


 * MAPP VS. OHIO (1961)**

In 1957 police was informed that a bomb case suspect could be found from the house of Dollree Mapp. The police went to her house, but Mapp didn't gave permission to enter, because they didn't have a search warrant. They left, but came back a few hours later and broke in the door. According to Mapp they held a piece of paper in the air, claiming it was the warrant, and Mapp took the paper and put it inside her dress. They were struggling and finally they handcuffed her for resisting. The police searched her entire house, but didn't find any leads of the bomber. Instead they found "lewd and lascivious" book, pictures and photographs and she was arrested for violating Ohio's law prohibiting the possession of obscene materials.

The court found her guilty of the violation based on the evidence presented by the police. Mapp's attorney asked the police about their warrant, but even though didn't answer to his questions Mapp was sentenced to 1 to 7 years in prison. The Supreme Court of Ohio didn't change the conviction regardless Mapp's argument that the search was illegal. She appealed to the Supreme Court of United States and they decided 6-3 vote in favor to Mapp, that evidence can't be used against someone if it has been gathered illegally.


 * Majority Opinion** was that Mapp was found not guilty. It was said that people are promised in Constitution that individuals are given the honest and real conviction and that's what Mapp got. Also 4th and 14th Amendment was cited. The court said that if the right to privacy stated in the 4th Amendment is valid with regard to action by the states, it should be in exclusionary rule too.
 * Dissenting Opinion** said that the case had not been properly briefed and wrong questions were brought up. They also thought that they tried to overrule the case of Wolf v. Ohio.
 * Probable Cause** was that the police was told that the suspect could be found fro Mapp's house. Therefore the police went to her house to look for her, because they thought she might be hiding a dangerous suspect.
 * Reasonable Belief** was that the police were quite sure she was hiding the suspect, so they went to her house.
 * Exclusionary Rule** was used in the court and her defense was that the police didn't have a proper warrant. Until Mapp's case most the states had rejected the exclusionary rule.