Mapp vs ohio 15 1 480440

Mapp v. Ohio

By hmaritz
  • Weeks vs. US

    the Supreme Court established the 'exclusionary rule' that the federal government could not rely on illegally seized evidence to obtain criminal convictions in federal court.
  • Period: to

    Mapp v. ohio

  • the illegal search

    Three officers went to the home and asked for permission to enter, but Mapp refused to admit them without a search warrant. Two officers left, and one remained. Three hours later, the two returned with several other officers. Brandishing a piece of paper, they broke in the door. Mapp asked to see the “warrant” and took it from an officer, putting it in her dress. The officers struggled with Mapp and took the piece of paper away from her. They handcuffed her for being “belligerent.”
  • Court Case

    The Court overturned the conviction, and five justices found that the States were bound to exclude evidence seized in violation of the 4th Amendment. In the majority opinion, Justice Tom Clark declared: “We hold that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution [is] inadmissible in a state court…. Were it otherwise…the assurance against unreasonable…searches and seizures would be [meaningless].”