You are on page 1of 2

Michael Cubas Mr. Ackerman Mapp vs.


11/25/10 Pd. 2

Dollree Mapp’s home was raided by Cleveland police on May 23, 1957. They were given a tip by future fight promoter Don King, that they would find evidence linked to a suspected bombing fugitive. When the police arrived at Mapp’s home they demanded entrance to search her home. Mapp refuses the police entrance and calls her attorney who in turn tells her to not let anyone in without a warrant. This drove the police away for several hours until they returned, claiming to have a warrant they forced themselves into Mapp’s home and began to search everything. The police took total control and even denied Mapp’s attorney entrance to the house while the search was in progress. Mapp demanded to see some kind of warrant. The police flashed a piece of paper to Mapp, insinuating a warrant; she then grabbed it and hid it in her clothing. In an attempt to retrieve the so-called warrant, the police ended up handcuffing Mapp for resisting. This is when, in their search of the basement, the Cleveland police found a trunk full of obscene material. As a result of the police not finding anything related to a recent bombing they decided to arrest Mapp on a charge of possessing ‘’lewd and lascivious books’’ which was illegal in Ohio law. Dollree Mapp argued that the police searched her property illegally due to the absence of a warrant. In turn, any incriminating evidence found under the improper search would be thrown out of court, overturning her conviction. She argued that the exclusionary rule which applied in federal courts should also apply in state courts. The 4th amendment needed to limit the power of the police in all levels in order to avoid abuse of

It was here where it was recognized that the 4th amendment protected her against unreasonable searches and seizures on a state level as well. However the Court stated the evidence was admissible because it was taken from in animate object and not a person. the court overturned Mapp’s conviction. In a 6-3 decision. Her appeal was denied and her conviction was upheld. Mapp appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio with the argument that it was an illegal search because the police have yet to present any kind of warrant. State of Ohio states that the Bill of Rights only restricts the actions of the National government. Clark determines that the federal government may not be allowed to use evidence obtained unreasonably due to the exclusionary rule which forbids this type of evidence admissible in state courts as well. The state of Ohio fires back by stating that even if the search was improperly conducted the 14th amendment does not disregard the admission of evidence obtained through unreasonable searches. In response she appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. Justice Tom C. .that power.