Mapp v Ohio
By: Gavin Koonts
10/27/13
Block 2
Mapp v Ohio
Dollree Mapp v State of Ohio
Argued: March 29, 1961
Decided: June 19, 1961
Case Overview
 3 policemen showed up to Mapp’s house looking for a
bombing suspect they believed was in the house. Mapp
called her lawyer, who told her to ask for a warrant. The
police couldn’t produce a warrant, so they called in
reinforcements to surround the house. Later, 5 policemen
bust down the door to gain entry. When Mapp asked for a
warrant, they showed her a piece of paper, which she took to
look at later. The officer then held her down and took the
piece of paper back. Mapp was handcuffed and carried
upstairs.
Case Overview
 The police searched her entire house, and didn’t find the
bomber. In the search they found gambling tickets, and
uncovered a chest in the basement of the house. The chest
contained obscene books and nude pictures, which the
police confiscated.
 Mapp was tried but acquitted of the charge of gambling. She
was convicted however, of owning obscene material, and
sentenced.
Case Overview
 Mapp claimed that the obscene material was owned by the
prior tenant of the house, who left some of his belongings
when he departed. She stored them in the basement for him
if he came looking for them.
 Mapp claimed that she never saw a warrant, and that they
entered the house illegally.
 The police officers say that they got a warrant, but a warrant
was never produced in court, and there was no
documentation of anyone signing one. There were conflicting
statements given by the officers questioned including where
the obscene materials were found.
Public Policy
 Ohio Law States That- “No person shall knowingly have in his
possession or under his control an obscene or lewd books or
picture. Whoever violates this section shall be fined not less
than two hundred nor more than two thousand dollars or
imprisoned not less than one nor more than seven years, or
both”
 “The Fourth Amendment put the courts of the United States and
Federal officials, in the exercise of their power and authority,
under limitations and restraints and forever secured the people,
their persons, houses, papers and effects against all
unreasonable searches and seizures under the guise of law,
and the duty of giving to it force and effect is obligatory upon all
entrusted under our Federal system with the enforcement of the
laws”
Public Policy
1st amendment- freedom of speech,
press, assembly, petition, religion
14th Amendment- States that Federal
apply to the states, and that states
cannot make laws conflicting the
Federal laws.
Arguments of the
Plaintiff
 The police acted illegally, and violated the constitution to find
the evidence. Without a search warrant anything found within
the house would be found in violation of the 4th and 14th
amendments.
 In Federal courts, if evidence is found unconstitutional then it
is thrown out due to the exclusionary rule. Their argument
was that, “If you cant use something in the federal court, you
should not be able to walk across the street and use it in the
state court.”
 They believed that any evidence that was found as a result of
the unconstitutional search should be thrown out of the case.
Argument of the
Defendant
 The 14th amendment does not apply to the state
courts. They said “the Fourteenth Amendment
does not forbid the admission of evidence obtained
by an unreasonable search and seizure”
 They said that the 10th amendment allowed them
to run a separate court system, and that the Bill or
Rights only restricts national government power.
Amicus Curiae Briefs
 An amicus curiae brief was submitted on October 26, 1959
by the Ohio Civil Liberties Union
 It argued1. The Ohio anti-obscenity statue violated the due process
clause of the 14th amendment to the US constitution
2. The statue interfered with privacy rights under the 4th, 5th,
and 14th amendment to the US constitution
3. The statue violated the equal protection clause of the 14th
amendment to the US constitution
Final Decision
 The supreme court ruled in Mapp’s favor and
excluded the evidence found against her.
 It was a 6-3 decision, and it set the Precedent thatAny evidence obtained through an unconstitutional
search and seizure cannot be used as evidence in
State as well as Federal courts of law. Also helped
broaden the reach of the constitution over the
states.
Dissenting Opinion
 Justices Harlan, Frankfurter, Whittaker
 Overruled the Wolf Case, which had said that the states
could use material unconstitutionally sized
 Said the main point was whether § 2905.34 of the Ohio
Revised Code, making criminal the mere knowing
possession or control of obscene material, and under
which appellant has been convicted, is consistent with
the rights of free thought and expression assured
against state action by the Fourteenth Amendment.
 Should have focused on whether just knowing that you
had obscene material was enough to convict you
Long Term Effects
 Any information obtained unconstitutionally was
excluded from court.
 This made getting an actual warrant much more
important to search a house. Without this case,
states could use unconstitutionally sized material
anytime they wanted, which means that the police
don’t really need a warrant.
 Expanded the constitutions power over the state
court system and led to more Nationalization of the
Bill of Rights
Bibliography
 http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_03
67_0643_ZD.html
 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapp_v._Ohio
 www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_236
 www.streetlaw.org › Landmark Cases › Cases
 www.infoplease.com › ... › Court Cases
 www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal...to.../mapp-v-ohio-4/