NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Mapp v Ohio Mapp v. Ohio, significant court case of 1961 in which the US Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained through illegal searches and seizures by state officers may not be admitted into criminal trials. The case involved a Cleveland lady, Dolly Mapp, who was detained for possessing obscene supplies. Law enforcement had discovered the materials in her house during their unlawful search for a bombing expect. After her state conviction, Mapp appealed to the U.
S. Supreme Court, arguing that her constitutional rights had been violated under the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, which forbids unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed her confidence. The Mapp case applied the so-called exclusionary rule to the states. This rule provides that evidence obtained in infringement of the Fourth Amendment may not be admitted in trials.
Mapp v. Ohio, important court case of 1961 in which the US Supreme Court ruled that evidence procured through unlawful searches and seizures by state officials may not be admitted into criminal trials. The justice had significant decision to make; to either protect the rights of the accused or convict criminals at all cost. The court concluded that protecting blameless peoples rights is far more important than imprisoning criminals.
In 1949, the Court ruled in Wolf vs. Colorado, coming that the due process clause of the 14 amendment did not incorporate the 9 th and 10 th amendments to US Constitution. Suggesting that the due process did not defend non-specified rights or was due process permanently defined within the states. According to this case, the state of Ohio was completely justified in convicting Ms. Mapp for her ownership of pornography. Since privacy and security is not one of our basic, listed rights, due procedure does not have to apply to protecting these rights.
And certainly since due process in not laid out in white and black, Ohio could rule and construct due process in any way they saw fit. The Supreme Court did convict Ms. Mapp on her possession of pornographie's. However, she appealed to the US Supreme Court in 1961, and the Court saw it necessary to review this matter and see what Wolf needed to be overruled. After reviewing the case, the Court ruled in favor of Ms.
Mapp and the exclusionary law was developed. This rule said that illegally seized evidence could not be used to condemn a person in a court room. This decision has greatly affected US legal system as well. The exclusionary rule was basically formed by giving up on one precedence over the other. The question is, weather or not it is more important to protect the innocent from impolite invasions, or to capture and convict criminals.
The judges felt this would be the best way to defend people from being deprived of their rights by the police and government. As a result many circumstances have arose where a criminal has been set free cause of the exclusionary rule. Which has been a major result for controversy. When Justice Harlan gave his dissenting opinion, he was fully aware of the situation that could be arising from this case. He knew that criminals would be free because of this and totally disagreed with it.
He said In this instance, for here we are reviewing not a determination that what the state police did was constitutionally permissible (since the state court quite evidently assumed that it was not), but a determination that appellant was properly found guilty of conduct which, for present purpose, it is to be assumed the State could constitutionally punish. He was referring to how he felt that it should not matter how somebody gains the evidence to prosecute a criminal; the only thing that should issue is weather the person did it or not. If one commits an offense, they ultimately should be punished, there should be no loot-poles around it. I tend to agree with the dissenting view on this matter.
I do not see it fair for people to get off because of laws within the legal system. If one commits a crime they should be convicted for it, regardless of how the evidence is found. If you make mistakes, you have to compensate the consequences. Also I think that our rights can be flexible enough to help convict criminals.
Our rights have been abridged before; such as freedom of expression being limited in time of war, and our right to bear arms is being considerably abridged with each New Year. So, we can be flexible to a point in our law system to help police matters. But that is the thing, to point. If Mapp were overturned, then it would take the full collaboration of the police force. What the police force did in this case was totally out of line. Being locked up as a prisoner, while strangers search your home is totally unfair.
We would have to make sure that it would never happen again. That is how many Americans, I think feel on this matter. They tend to agree with Justice Steward and me. Feeling the need to capture the outsiders, but not to go as far as giving up our freedoms. He said, I express no view as to the merits of the constitutional issue which the Court today decides. I would, however, reverse the judgement in this particular case, because I am persuaded that the provision of the Ohio Revised Code, upon which the petitioners conviction was based, is, in the words of Justice Harlan, not consistent with the rights of privacy and security assured against state action by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Him and the rest of our society fell the need to convict outsiders, but at the same time do not want their rights violated as they were in this case. Probably we should not determine how one is convicted, but better yet, make proper adjustments in how the police force can search the house. A warrant does not always cut it, citizens can get rid of the evidence before the warrant can be issued. There has to be an modification made so that the police can search without a guarantee, but at the same time, not to totally abolish ones rights.
It is a very controversial matter, with a not so clear solution. Since 1961, the controversial case of Mapp vs. Ohio the Exclusionary has been in tact. I do not think it will be a major matter in the upcoming election because Americans have grown accustomed to it within the past 44 years. Though, when the Court reviews the case they will probably head in the way of police restraint rather than the exclusionary law. The rule may give too many rights too our citizens.
One could run a muck, and commit a numerous amount of offenses; but get rid of all the evidence and then be free. There should be a method to put these criminals in line. Much of our citizens feel the same as I do and this is what we want to see happen, and I think Mapp will be overturned and a new system will be developed.
Free research essays on topics related to: fourth amendment, exclusionary rule, criminal trials, supreme court ruled, searches and seizures
Research essay sample on Supreme Court Ruled Searches And Seizures
