Mapp vs Ohio (1961): A Case Brief

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Click Here To Order Now!

Mapp v. Ohio

Facts

After being notified that a bombing suspect was hiding in a petitioners residence, they attempted at searching the premises. The petitioner, however, asked the policemen to prove the legitimacy of the procedure with a search warrant. After the policemen returned with the warrant, the petitioner refused to open the door anyway, which was the reason for the policemen to open it by force. As soon as the policemen showed the petitioner the warrant, she snatched it out of the policemens hands and concealed it. After recovering the warrant and placing the petitioner under arrest, the policemen continued the search, which resulted in finding obscene materials in the trunk hidden in the petitioners basement. As a result, the petitioner was convicted of possession of pornographic materials.

Judicial history

The defendant was convicted by the Ohio Court of Common Pleas.

Issue

The legitimacy of the data acquired in the course of the search that violates the Fourth Amendment is questioned in the given case.

Rule/Holding

The evidence extracted in the course of the search, which did not comply with the existing law and violated the principles of the Fourth Amendment, was considered inadmissible for the use in the court proceedings.

Reasoning

The court based its decision on the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

Katz v. United States

Facts

Katz, i.e., the petitioner, used a phone booth to inform his accomplice on the changes concerning wagers that were hold in Los Angeles, CA. The recipients were located in Boston, MA and Miami, FL. As soon as the breach of law was confirmed, the FBI representatives installed a device that allowed for phone tapping in the given booth. Thereafter, the conversations that the petitioner had with his accomplices were recorded and used as evidence later. However, the fact that a phone tapping device was used in a public booth was considered against the principles of the Fourth Amendment and the violation of the petitioners freedoms, which was the reason for the case to be granted a certiorari and passed on to a higher court to handle.

Judicial history

The defendant was acquitted in the United States Court of Appeals due to the lack of legitimate evidence.

Issue

The legitimacy of the evidence recorded in a public phone booth without peoples awareness of the booth being tapped is the issue in the given case.

Rule/Holding

The court ruled in favor of Katz, seeing how the acquisition of information from personal conversations follows not a place, but a person and, therefore, cannot be considered as legally acquired evidence.

Reasoning

The decision was based on the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

Scenario: Case Brief

Facts

After receiving an anonymous call from a concerned person about a former terrorist Mr. Darwood planning to blow up a church, policemen broke into Robert P. Darwoods house. With a record of an arrest and a charge for possessing an illegal weapon and a controlled substance, Mr. Darwood was considered a threat to the neighborhood by the police. At first, Mr. Darwood refused to let the police in since they did not have the search warrant. However, after the policemen obtained the warrant and returned, Darwood refused to open the door again, since he was ill and, thus, unable to open it. Therefore, after Darwood refused to open the door under the pretext of being ill, the police broke into the premises. The search returned little results, with no proof of Darwoods bombing the church. As it turned out, it was a case of mistaken identity, and the real bomber, Robert Darwood, lived in another city. However, the police did find cocaine and a weapon. Thereafter, the police prohibited Mr. Darwood from calling his lawyer.

Issue

The legitimacy of the evidence acquired in the course of the search that violates the principles of the Fourth Amendment is the issue here.

Comparison: Scenario and Mapp v. Ohio

Looking back at the Mapp vs. Ohio case, one must admit that it does not have a lot in common with the one of Mapp v. Ohio except for a small yet significant detail. In both cases, the policemen were attempting at conducting the search of the suspects houses without the search warrant. While the given nuance might be considered nitpicking by the vast majority, seeing how in both cases, the police did find evidence against the suspects, it still raises a few concerns. It will be legitimate to ask if the police have the right to abuse their power, seeing how the people that they are after are most likely to be guilty anyway.

On the one hand, the given solution seems quite reasonable, since it levels the chances for the police to apprehend the suspects and prevent further crimes. On the other hand, resorting to illegal methods of proving their point police will stoop to the same level that criminals are on, which means that there will be little difference between the two. The cases, however, also have a number of differences, the key one being the resolution. While in Mapp v. Ohio, the criminal uses the policemens abuse of power to sneak his way out of the case, in Darwoods scenario, Robert Darwood is not guilty of what he is charged with, yet the results of the search reveal that he still possesses illegal substances and weapons.

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Click Here To Order Now!

Posted in Law