Mapp v. Ohio

Mapp v. Ohio,

case decided in 1961 by the U.S. Supreme Court. Dollree Mapp was convicted in a state court of possessing pornographic material in violation of Ohio law. Her conviction was obtained on the basis of evidence taken by the police when they entered (1957) her boardinghouse without a search warrant while looking for gambling materials. The Supreme Court, in overturning her conviction, declared that the exclusionary rule (based on the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution), which prohibits the use in federal court of evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure, extended also to state courts. The ruling provoked a good deal of controversy; while proponents of the exclusionary rule claim that it is the only means of assuring freedom from illegal searches, opponents argue that a criminal should not go free because of a police officer's violation of the Constitution.

Mapp v. Ohio

A landmark Supreme Court decision, Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (1961), established the rule that evidence that has been obtained by an illegal Search and Seizure cannot be used to prove the guilt of a defendant at a state criminal trial.

Police officers went to the home of Dollree Mapp in an attempt to find someone who was wanted for questioning about a recent bombing. When they demanded entrance to the house, Mapp called her attorney and refused to allow the police to enter without a Search Warrant. Subsequently the police officers became rough with Mapp and handcuffed her. Upon a search of the house, they found obscene books, pictures, and photographs for the possession of which the defendant was subsequently prosecuted and convicted.

The defendant brought an unsuccessful action challenging the constitutionality of the search. An appeal was made to the Ohio Supreme Court, which affirmed the judgment. The defendant appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reversed the decision on the ground that evidence obtained by an unconstitutional seizure was inadmissible.

The Court was extremely critical of the actions of the police and held that the defendant's privacy had been unconstitutionally invaded. The police tactics were deemed comparable to a confession forced out of a fearful prisoner. The Court ruled that to compel respect for the constitutional right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, it was necessary to exclude illegally obtained evidence from the consideration of the trial court.

The Supreme Court had ruled, as early as 1886, that any illegally obtained evidence could not be introduced in federal courts. This principle, known as the Exclusionary Rule, was initially applied to state criminal prosecutions in Mapp. The Court made note of the fact that, in other instances, various states had attempted to prevent illegal police searches by other means, but the exclusionary rule is, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, the only effective means of protecting citizens from illegal searches conducted by government agents.

Cross-references

Criminal Procedure.

单词	mapp v. ohio
释义	Mapp v. Ohio Mapp v. Ohio, case decided in 1961 by the U.S. Supreme Court. Dollree Mapp was convicted in a state court of possessing pornographic material in violation of Ohio law. Her conviction was obtained on the basis of evidence taken by the police when they entered (1957) her boardinghouse without a search warrant while looking for gambling materials. The Supreme Court, in overturning her conviction, declared that the exclusionary rule (based on the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution), which prohibits the use in federal court of evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure, extended also to state courts. The ruling provoked a good deal of controversy; while proponents of the exclusionary rule claim that it is the only means of assuring freedom from illegal searches, opponents argue that a criminal should not go free because of a police officer's violation of the Constitution. Mapp v. Ohio Mapp v. Ohio A landmark Supreme Court decision, Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (1961), established the rule that evidence that has been obtained by an illegal Search and Seizure cannot be used to prove the guilt of a defendant at a state criminal trial. Police officers went to the home of Dollree Mapp in an attempt to find someone who was wanted for questioning about a recent bombing. When they demanded entrance to the house, Mapp called her attorney and refused to allow the police to enter without a Search Warrant. Subsequently the police officers became rough with Mapp and handcuffed her. Upon a search of the house, they found obscene books, pictures, and photographs for the possession of which the defendant was subsequently prosecuted and convicted. The defendant brought an unsuccessful action challenging the constitutionality of the search. An appeal was made to the Ohio Supreme Court, which affirmed the judgment. The defendant appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reversed the decision on the ground that evidence obtained by an unconstitutional seizure was inadmissible. The Court was extremely critical of the actions of the police and held that the defendant's privacy had been unconstitutionally invaded. The police tactics were deemed comparable to a confession forced out of a fearful prisoner. The Court ruled that to compel respect for the constitutional right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, it was necessary to exclude illegally obtained evidence from the consideration of the trial court. The Supreme Court had ruled, as early as 1886, that any illegally obtained evidence could not be introduced in federal courts. This principle, known as the Exclusionary Rule, was initially applied to state criminal prosecutions in Mapp. The Court made note of the fact that, in other instances, various states had attempted to prevent illegal police searches by other means, but the exclusionary rule is, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, the only effective means of protecting citizens from illegal searches conducted by government agents. Cross-references Criminal Procedure.
随便看	squash up squash up against squash up against someone squash up against (someone or something) squash us in squash us in like sardines squash us into squash us like sardines squash us up against squash vine squashy squash you in squash you in like sardines squash you into squash you like sardines squash you up against squassation squat squat (disambiguation) squaterole squatina squatina dumeril squatina squatina squatinidae squat jump syndrome