Mapp v. Ohio
Cleveland, Ohio suburb received information that a suspect of a bombing case, as well as some illegal betting equipment, might be found in the home to Doodler Map. Three officers went to the home and asked tort permission to enter, but Map refused to let them In without a search warrant. Two officers left, and one remained. Three hours later, the two returned with several other officers with a piece of paper and broke in the door. Map asked to see the warrant and took it from an officer, putting it in her dress.
The officers struggled with Map and took the piece of paper away from her and handcuffed her for being “belligerent. ” Police found neither the bombing suspect nor the betting equipment during their search, but they did discover some pornographic material in a suitcase in Map’s basement. Map said that she had loaned the suitcase to a roommate at one time and that the contents were not her property.
Only $13.90 / page
Map was charged with violating Ohio state law that prohibits “lewd. Lascivious, or obscene material. She was invoiced and sentenced to one to seven years in prison – no search warrant was introduced as evidence at her trial. Map had to write a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari – A document which a losing party files with the Supreme Court asking the Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower court. It Includes a list of the parties, a statement of the facts of the case, the legal questions presented for review, and arguments as to why the Court should grant the writ. After she was charged for the possession of pornographic materials, she wanted her case to be seen by the
Supreme Court so they could overrule the state court’s findings. The argument in her favor was that the police, who possessed no warrant to search Map’s property, had acted improperly by searching her house. Any incriminating evidence found during the search should, therefore, be thrown out of court and her conviction overturned. If the 4th Amendment did not limit the rights of police on the local and State level, local law enforcement would have a right to search wherever, whenever, and whomever they pleased.
The exclusionary rule that was applied in federal courts hooked also be applied to State court proceedings and states that it the police did an Illegal search and seizure, any incriminating evidence could not be used In court. The argument of the State of Ohio was that even if the search was made without proper authority, the State was not prevented from using the evidence seized because “the Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure. ” In other words, Ohio argued that the 14th Amendment does not guarantee 4th Amendment protections in the State courts.
In addition, under the 10th Amendment, the States retain their right to operate a separate court system and the Bill of Rights only restricts and limits the actions of the National Government. In a 6-3 decision, the Court overturned the conviction. And five Justices found that the States were bound to exclude evidence seized in violation of the 4th Amendment. The exclusionary rule already applied to federal cases. In Map v. Ohio, the Court believed that the exclusionary rule was an tofu process clause, which says that “No state shall… Upriver any person of life, liberty, or reporter, without due process of law,” meant that the federal exclusionary rule now applied to the states. “Since the Fourth Amendment’s right of privacy has been declared enforceable against the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth, it is enforceable against them by the same sanction of exclusion as is used against the Federal Government. ” The dissenting opinion for the Map v. Ohio case was that majority of the Justices believed that Map was in the right because the police had not gotten a search warrant for the fugitive they believed to be hiding n her house.
Other Justices believed because the state of Ohio had a law against the “lewd, lascivious, or obscene material,” she should not have had them in her house. The counter for that though, was the idea of privacy. Privacy I not strictly covered in the Constitution and because of this, the only idea they had to go on was that the suppressed evidence of the pornography had been taken from her house without use of a search warrant, none of it could legally be used in court and that is the reason the Justices overruled the state court’s hearing for her case.
Map v. Ohio applied the “exclusionary rule” prohibiting evidence gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against warranties searches from being used as evidence in a state court prosecution. In other words, today, state authorities cannot enter your home without a warrant and gather any illegal material therein, and then prosecute you based on such material. This represents a protection of privacy that helped establish the foundation for using due process to protect other essential rights from the Constitution and its interpretation.