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 3^rd 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