Michael Cubas 11/25/10

Mr. Ackerman Pd. 2

Mapp vs. Ohio

Dollree Mapp’s home was raided by Cleveland police on May 23, 1957.

They were given a tip by future fight promoter Don King, that they would find evidence

linked to a suspected bombing fugitive. When the police arrived at Mapp’s home they

demanded entrance to search her home. Mapp refuses the police entrance and calls her

attorney who in turn tells her to not let anyone in without a warrant.

This drove the police away for several hours until they returned, claiming to have

a warrant they forced themselves into Mapp’s home and began to search everything. The

police took total control and even denied Mapp’s attorney entrance to the house while the

search was in progress. Mapp demanded to see some kind of warrant. The police flashed

a piece of paper to Mapp, insinuating a warrant; she then grabbed it and hid it in her

clothing. In an attempt to retrieve the so-called warrant, the police ended up handcuffing

Mapp for resisting. This is when, in their search of the basement, the Cleveland police

found a trunk full of obscene material. As a result of the police not finding anything

related to a recent bombing they decided to arrest Mapp on a charge of possessing ‘’lewd

and lascivious books’’ which was illegal in Ohio law.

Dollree Mapp argued that the police searched her property illegally due to the

absence of a warrant. In turn, any incriminating evidence found under the improper

search would be thrown out of court, overturning her conviction. She argued that the

exclusionary rule which applied in federal courts should also apply in state courts. The 4th

amendment needed to limit the power of the police in all levels in order to avoid abuse of
that power. The state of Ohio fires back by stating that even if the search was improperly

conducted the 14th amendment does not disregard the admission of evidence obtained

through unreasonable searches. State of Ohio states that the Bill of Rights only restricts

the actions of the National government.

Mapp appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio with the argument that it was an

illegal search because the police have yet to present any kind of warrant. However the

Court stated the evidence was admissible because it was taken from in animate object and

not a person. Her appeal was denied and her conviction was upheld. In response she

appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. It was here where it was recognized

that the 4th amendment protected her against unreasonable searches and seizures on a

state level as well. In a 6-3 decision, the court overturned Mapp’s conviction. Justice

Tom C. Clark determines that the federal government may not be allowed to use evidence

obtained unreasonably due to the exclusionary rule which forbids this type of evidence

admissible in state courts as well.