Admissibility of Illegally Obtained Evidence

Paper Summary:

This paper examines the case of "Mapp v. Ohio" which concerns the admissibility in court of evidence obtained without a search warrant and that was obtained in connection with a totally different case. The appellant Mapp sought review of the decision of the Ohio Supreme Court, which affirmed her conviction for possession of lewd and lascivious books, pictures, and photographs. The author of the paper reviews the details of the events leading up to the original conviction and then describes the basis of the appeal. The writer then goes on to discuss the court's decision and examines concurring and dissenting opinions presented in the final judgment.

Outline:
Name of Case
Citation
Year Decided
Character of Action
Facts
Issues
Decision
Opinion
Concurring Opinion
Dissenting Opinion
Comment
Works Cited

From the Paper:

"Police officers received information that a wanted person was hiding in appellant Mapp's home, and three police officers demanded entrance to appellant's home. Appellant contacted her attorney and refused to admit the police to her home without a search warrant. The police set up surveillance of her home; a duplex-style building with Appellant's living quarters on the second floor. When more officers arrived, they forcibly entered appellant's home. Appellant's attorney arrived, but the officers refused to permit him to enter the house or to see appellant. Appellant demanded to see a search warrant. The police showed her a piece of paper that they claimed was a warrant; appellant grabbed the paper and placed it in her bosom. The officers and appellant struggled over the paper, the officers subdued her, and the officers handcuffed her. The police then took the Appellant upstairs to her living quarters, where the police executed a general search of her bedroom, her child's bedroom, the living room, the kitchen, and a dinette. This search included closed places such as suitcases, dresser-drawers, and a pile of personal papers. The police then searched the basement of the building. During the course of the widespread search, the police discovered the material supporting appellant's conviction; a few documents that were considered obscenity in violation of Ohio Rev. Code 2905.34. At trial, the State could not produce the search warrant; in fact, the likelihood is that there was no warrant. In addition, the search was executed to recover material linked to a recent bombing, not to uncover material linked to obscenity."

Sample of Sources Used:

• Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=367&page=643

More papers on Admissibility of Illegally Obtained Evidence:

• Research Paper # 96266 : "Exclusionary Rule"
• Argumentative Essay # 134467 : "Impact of Illegal Immigrants on American Healthcare"
• Argumentative Essay # 89050 : "Financial Impact of Illegal Immigration"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: