What is the significance of mapp v. ohio 1961




















While Mapp's defense attorney cited the Weeks case in seeking to dismiss the charges, he failed to argue that this constitutional prohibition against using illegally obtained evidence should be applied in a state court. In , citing the ACLU's arguments, the Supreme Court reversed Mapp's conviction and adopted the exclusionary rule as a national standard. As important as it is to convict criminals, the Supreme Court in Mapp rightly insisted that the Constitution must not be trampled in the process.

Des Moines New York Times v. United States Gregg v. Georgia Regents of Univ. Cal v. Bakke Marbury V. Scott V. The Slaughter- house Cases. Lochner V. New York. Schenck V. United States. Korematsu V. Brown V. Board of Education. Mapp V. Baker V. This decision significantly changed state law-enforcement procedures throughout the country.

The case began on 23 May when police officers entered the Cleveland home of Dollree Mapp looking for a person wanted for questioning in a recent bombing and seeking illegal gambling paraphernalia.

After a thorough search, the police found neither the person nor the gambling materials. However, they did find obscene material, which Mapp denied owning. Possession of obscene materials was then illegal according to state law, and Mapp was arrested.

Although in Wolf the Court ruled that states are bound by the due process requirements of the Fourth Amendment, the majority opinion in that case also stated that the exclusionary rule--preventing improperly obtained evidence from being introduced in court--need not be applied in state court proceedings.

When Mapp took her case to the U. Supreme Court, her lawyers appealed her conviction primarily on First Amendment grounds. They argued that the state of Ohio had violated Mapp's right to freedom of thought and expression by making the mere possession of obscene material illegal.

However, the American Civil Liberties Union also filed an amicus "friend of the court" brief in which it argued for a reconsideration of Wolf.



0コメント

  • 1000 / 1000