Mapp+vs.+Ohio


 * Name: Breanna Bushong **
 * Court Case: Mapp vs. Ohio **


 * // What amendment did this case deal with and what does it say? //**

This court case dealt with the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment says that a member of the law enforcement must have a search warrant before they enter your property and search for things. If they don’t have a search warrant and still come on your property without permission from you, anything they find there cannot be used in court. To obtain a search warrant they must have a good reason for searching your house. All search warrants are issued out by a judge, if they think the reason for searching the certain place is a good one. To search someone's house the law enforcers must have a search warrant issued by a judge.


 * // What is the background of the case? Summarize what happened! //**

In this case, the police officers were tipped off that they might find a suspect bomber hiding in Ms. Mapp’s house. When they tried to enter her house she wouldn’t let them in without a search warrant. They came back three hours later with a search warrant, but Ms. Mapp wouldn’t open the door, so they forcibly entered the house. When Ms. Mapp demanded to see the search warrant, the police handed it over and she stuffed it down her shirt, they did eventually get the warrant back. They then arrested for being obnoxious about the search warrant. When they searched her house they did find obscene materials in a trunk in her basement.


 * // What was the final decision of the Supreme Court and why did they decide this? //**

The Supreme Court decided to overturn the conviction. They said that Ms. Mapp was being obnoxious within her rights. They also ruled that the illegal things found in her house couldn’t be used against her in court. When I tried to find out why they ruled this, I found many conflicting reports. Some websites claimed that they didn’t have a search warrant while others said they did, but they both agree that the police searched the house illegally. Because of this ruling, Ms. Mapp walked away from this case without being charged.


 * Name: Tyler Seidel**


 * Date: November 8, 2011**


 * Court Case: **


 * //What amendment did this case deal with and what does it say?//**


 * // This case deals with the 4th amendment. The reason it deals with the 4th amendment is because Mapp needed to see a search warrant to let them look in her house. And since search warrants are under the fourth amendment this court case deals with the fourth amendments //**


 * //What is the background of the case? Summarize what happened!//**


 * // The police were aware of a bomb suspect and illegal betting equipment at the house of Dollree Mapp. So they went to her house and asked for permission to search her house but she wouldn’t allow them to without a search warrant. So they got one and came back. When they showed Dollree the warrant she took it and put it down her shirt. Later they arrested her for being obnoxious about the search warrant. //**


 * //What was the final decision of the Supreme Court and why did they decide this?//**


 * // The Supreme Court allowed Miss Dollree Mapp to walk of uncharged. The court had to exclude the evidence that they found during the search. They stated that the evidence fond in the violation of the fourth amendment was indissmissible in court. So she walked free because of a mess up of the police officers. //**


 * // sssss //**
 * Miranda Groover **
 * November 9, 2011 **
 * Mapp vs. Ohio **

**This court case had to do with the 4th and 14th amendment. The 4th amendment specifically states that you have to have a warrant to enter ones property, unless they see what they are looking for, within eye sight. The 14th amendment says that all U.S citizens are treated with equal rights.**


 * On May 23, 1957, officers in Ohio reported that there was information found about a possible bombing and illegal betting equipment. They were told that they might find some evidence in the home of Dollree Mapp. There were a few Officers that went to her home to try and find this evidence. Mapp would not allow this because they did not have a search warrant. Mapp was being “belligerent” so, officers had to arrest her for this bad behavior. They then went to the local state judge of Ohio and got a search warrant for this case. The officers then found a suit case that had pornographic materials and Mapp objected it was not hers. **


 * Dollree Mapp was found guilty by the state, she appealed and took the case to the Supreme Court. She was then found not guilty. The Supreme Court simply said that the officers did not have a search warrant for what they found. They did have one for what they did not find which was evidence in the bombing and betting equipment. The officers could not hold the pornographic material against Mapp, because they were not looking for that and the judge did not give permission. **


 * Name: Michael Armitage**
 * Date: November 10th 2011**


 * Court Case: Mapp v. Ohio **


 * //What amendment did this case deal with and what does it say?//**

This case deals with the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment is what deals with police entering your home. The police can’t search your home without a search warrant. The search warrant has to be issued and signed by a judge before it is legal and can be used only once. Once they’ve got one, they’re allowed to enter your house by law. However, there have been cases where people come onto your property without a search warrant. If they find an item and take you to court for it, that item can’t be used against you because it was received illegaly. If they find what they’re looking for and have a warrant, then you can get into a lot of trouble. This case deals with the 4th amendment.


 * //What is the background of the case? Summarize what happened!//**

The case started in 1957. Police had intel that Dollree Mapp had illegal gambling material in her Ohio boardinghouse. The police went to property without a warrant and asked to go into her house. She denied but the police went in anyway. Instead of finding gambling materials, they found inappropriate materials that was against Ohio law. The federal law and Mapp went to court. The decision that was made was to let Mapp go. This is a light summary on the backround of the case.


 * //What was the final decision of the Supreme Court and why did they decide this?//**

The Supreme Court’s final decision was to let Mapp go. They let her go because of a couple of reasons. The most important reason was that the police had commited illegal search and seizure. Another reason is that they weren’t even sure if the intel was true. A third reason was that they didn’t even find what they were looking for. All of these reasons affected the Supreme Court’s decision to let Mapp go.