Mapp v. Ohio - matheusapgov

Rachel Simmons
Background & Freedom at Issue
The 4th and 14th Amendments
With reasonable suspicion of a bomb
at the house, the police went to
search the home
They entered the house without a
search warrant and arrested her
Ohio claimed that the 14th
amendment has no guarantees with
the fourth amendment in the state
In the state courts, they claim that the
14th amendment only limits the rights
of the national government
She thought her freedom of thought
in the obscenity rule was violated, but
the courts disregarded that and
focused on the seizure amendment
Decision of the Court
In a 6-3 decision, they
overturned her conviction
They claimed the courts could
not use the evidence found
under the unreasonable
The point to assuring against
an unreasonable search
would then be pointless
14th amendment requires that
the state courts must follow
the Bill of Rights just as much
as the federal government
They were at fault that they
did not follow the 14th
Interpretation of Rights
Mapp v Ohio allowed
for the exclusionary rule
to be used the state
court cases
Ultimately, under this the
4th amendment was
strengthened to the
privacy of Americans
It reinforced the fact
that the 14th amendment
applies to the states