*Mapp+v.+Ohio

Wednesday, March 29, 1961 1/1
 * Date the case was Decided**:

**Summary** Police raided Dollree Mapp’s home after they received a tip saying that she had information linked to a recent bombing from a Mr. Don King. WHEN? On the first attempt to enter, police where refused entry because they did not have a warrant. The police then returned with a warrant and searched Mapp’s home. They did not find any evidence linked to the bombing, however they arrested Mapp anyway, for possession of illicit pornographic material. During the initial trial INSERT COMMA no search warrant was produced to verify the legality of the evidence presented against Mapp. This fact was originally ignored by the court. However Mapp made herself heard when she appealed to the Supreme Court. The trail was then thrown into question, because no warrant was ever produced in court.

YOU NEED TO MENTION THAT SHE WAS CONVICTED IN THE INITIAL TRIAL - THAT'S WHY SHE APEALED 4.5/5

The question in this Supreme Court case, Mapp v. Ohio, was whether or not the illegally obtained evidence was admissible in court. The Cleveland police acted against the 4th amendment in the Constitution and searched Mapp's house without any reason.The 4th amendment clearly states that there shall be no unreasonable searches and seizures. The searches of Dolree Mapp;s home was without warrant and clearly unreasonable. That is why Mapp was able to have all charges from this case dismissed. YOU ARE GETTING AHEAD OF YOURSELVES! JUST STATE THE QUESTION - DON'T TELL WHAT THE ANSWER IS - THAT COMES LATER!
 * Legal Issue:**

4.5/5

Mapp won her case by a vote of six to three PERIOD CAP the charges against map SPELL/CAPS where AHHH!!! WERE dismissed and a new president PRECEDENT was set. In layman’s terms COMMA the decision said that if law enforcement, either state or federal, illegally acquires evidence, then it is unconstitutional and illegal for them to use that evidence in court. The law that was violated was the right against unreasonable search and seizure. GOOD INFO BUT HORRIBLE SPELLING/GRAMMAR 4/5
 * Decision**:

This case is significant because it shows how police officers and other federal authorities can not always be trusted. The ruling of the Ohio CAPS state court, DELETE COMMA had been unconstitutional. When the case was originally decided, the State Court had said the 4th amendment only applied in certain cases. When this case was heard by the Supreme Court, it was decided that the 4th amendment applied in all situations and cases. 4.5/5
 * Significance:**

//**Picture:**//

NO PICTURE 0/2

//**Bibliography:**

1.(2009).// Supreme court media, mapp v. ohio//. Retrieved from []

2. (2005).// Mapp v. ohio (1961)//. Retrieved from []

(1999). //Mapp v. ohio //. Retrieved from [|http://www.tourolaw.edu/PATCH/Mapp] Clark, TCC. (2007, may 29). //Papers of justice //. Retrieved from [|http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http]://web4.cc.utexas.edu/clark/images/mapp_photo.jpg&imgrefurl= [|http://web4.cc.utexas.edu/clark/mapp.html&usg=]__Lt4qXOJlttUUGtnEjumevXHOAcI=&h=379&w=310&sz=23&hl=en&start=5&um=1&tbnid=HSlEUNeYUg//

[|http://www.tourolaw.edu/PATCH/Mapp/]

[|http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://web4.cc.utexas.edu/clark/images/mapp_photo.jpg&imgrefurl=http://web4.cc.utexas.edu/clark/mapp.html&usg=__Lt4qXOJlttUUGtnEjumevXHOAcI=&h=379&w=310&sz=23&hl=en&start=5&um=1&tbnid=HSlEUNeYUgPd4M:&tbnh=123&tbnw=101&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmapp%2Bv.%2Bohio%26ndsp%3D20%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Dactive%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1]

[|http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/lonmap.html]

DON'T NUMBER ENTRIES IN BIBLIOGAPHY - USE APA FORMAT FOR ALL ENTRIES 1/2


 * 20/25 = 80% (B)**