Sunday, May 18, 2014

Mapp v. Ohio case brief summary

Mapp v. Ohio case brief summary

(1961, US Supreme Court, Justice Clark)-
 
Facts: Based on a vague tip from an informant, the police officers were looking for a person in connection with a bombing and “policy parapharnelia” in Miss Mapp’s home. the officers attempted to enter without a warrant, but Miss Mapp refused to allow them in. The officer’s left, and returned without a warrant, but this time held up a paper that purported to be a warrant, but was not. The officer’s found obscene material in her home.
 
Held: “We hold that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by that same authority, inadmissible in state court.”
 
Key Points:
·         Technically, its not all b/c some people do not have a right to object to use of evidence seized as a result of violation of a 3rd person’s constitutional rights
·         Deterrence is an important feature of the exclusionary rule because the State should not be able to benefit from the wrong done by its agent.
·         This was Mapp’s home as opposed to her office, vehicle, booksack, etc; The officer’s had no probable cause
·         The fact that the officer’s may have been correct doesn’t make a difference
                             ·         The nature of the crime is a critical feature of whether the exclusionary policy should be utilized – court uses cost/benefit analysis

No comments:

Post a Comment

Search Thousands of Case Briefs and Articles.