Historical Background
Dollree Mapp was under
suspicion for possibly hiding a
person suspected in a bombing.
Mapp refused to let the police in
her home because they did not
obtain a warrant.
After a few hours, the police
forced their way into Mapp's
house, holding up a piece of
paper when Mapp demanded to
see their search warrant.
The police found no evidence of
anyone hiding but did come
across pornographic materials!
Mapp was arrested and charged
with violating an Ohio law
against the possession of
obscene materials.
The jury found Mapp guilty
and she was sentenced to jail.
The case was brought to the
attention of the supreme court
after loosing her appeal in the
Ohio Supreme Court.
The Court determined that
evidence obtained through a
search that violates the Fourth
Amendment is inadmissible in
state courts
Comic Background
To better understand:
We made our own cartoon.
1
2
3
Dollree Mapp’s House in Cleveland Ohio
[The music you hear is for dramatic purposes only. It was not actually
playing during this scenario.]
Ma’am, there is a report of a person tied
to a bombing hiding in your house! Can
we come in a take a look?
NO! You can not come into my home
without no warrant!
3 Hours Later…
Ma’am Please Open The Door!
MoVe In!!!
Not a
Warrant
Not a
Warrant
Not a
Warrant
Not a
Warrant
Not a
Warrant
Not a
Warrant
Not a
Warrant
Not a
Warrant
Not a
Warrant
Not a
Warrant
I need to see a warrant!
Not a
Warrant
I have it right here!
Hey I found bad things in this chest!
Mrs. Mapp you are under arrest for the
possession of obscene material and
resisting arrest!
Legal Question
 Were the confiscated materials
protected by the First Amendment?
 May evidence obtained through a
search in violation of the Fourth
Amendment be admitted in a state
criminal proceeding?
The Decision
Concurring Opinion:
“when the Fourth Amendment's ban
against unreasonable searches and
seizures is considered together with the
Fifth Amendment's ban against
compelled self-incrimination, a
constitutional basis emerges which not
only justifies but actually requires the
exclusionary rule.”
- Justice Black
Dissenting Opinion:
“The new and pivotal issue brought to the
Court by this appeal is 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.”
- Justice Harlan
Stated that anything admitted without having a warrant
served is inadmissible.
["Exclusion rule" was set in place]
In a 5-3 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Mapp!
The Precedent
The officers violated the 14th amendment by searching
Dollree Mapp’s home without a warrant and presenting
illegally obtained evidence to the court. By doing this they
also went against previous court rulings.
This affects cases in the future by making it necessary for
warrants to be presented when obtaining evidence for court
cases.
Public Support
For:
Interest groups would support
the decision of the Supreme
Court because the evidence
was obtained without a
warrant. This is considered to
be illegal.
Against:
Interest groups would be
against the decision of the
Supreme Court, because no
matter how the materials were
obtained they were still in the
possession of Dollree Mapp
and they were still illegal.
Judgment and Justification
If I was on the Supreme Court at the time of Mapp V. Ohio I
would have been in favor of how the court ruled because of
when the materials were obtained by the police there was no
search warrant. This is illegal because in the 14th
amendment of the United States constitution it states that
every citizen is protected from “unreasonable search and
seizures”.