An Overview of Mapp v. Ohio, Essay Example

Introduction

As Case 367 U.S. 643, No. 236, argued March 29, 1961, and decided June 19, 1961, the landmark Mapp v. Ohio helped to reinforce the constitutional rule that “evidence seized in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment may not be used at trial” and that all U.S. states “must abide by the exclusionary rule” which has generated often controversial means of ensuring justice (Landmark Supreme Court Cases and the Constitution: Mapp v. Ohio (1961), 2010). In legal terms, the exclusionary rule is considered as a vital part of the Fourteenth Amendment along with the Due Process Clause. Opponents of this rule argue that all evidence must be used in a court of law, regardless if the police have a search warrant; in contrast, the Supreme Court noted that if a government fails to adhere to its own laws, its power and authority will quickly vanish (Landmark Supreme Court Cases and the Constitution: Mapp v. Ohio (1961), 2010).

Facts of the Case

On May 23, 1957, three Cleveland, Ohio, policemen arrived at the home of Dollree Mapp who was suspected of harboring a person wanted for questioning regarding a recent bombing (Mapp v. Ohio, 2014). Despite Mapp’s protests and demand to see a search warrant, the police entered her home and failed to find the wanted suspect. However, they did find sexually explicit books and photographs which led to Mapp being charged with violating Ohio state law prohibiting the ownership of “lewd, lascivious, or obscene material.” At her trial, Mapp was convicted and sentenced to one to seven years in prison (Landmark Supreme Court Cases and the Constitution: Mapp v. Ohio (1961), 2010).

Arguments of the Petitioner (Mapp)

As a result of her conviction, Mapp appealed the decision of the Ohio court, basing her argument on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which protects the right of an American citizen to possess, own, and read printed and/or published materials regardless of their sexual nature. However, the court abided by the original conviction for the possession of pornography which forced Mapp to take her case to the Supreme Court.

Court Ruling and Future Impact

When Mapp’s case reached the floor of the U.S. Supreme Court, the justices decided that her conviction in the Ohio court was unjustified since it violated Mapp’s First Amendment rights. This led to the Court dismissing the original conviction, due to acknowledging that the “evidence against her should never have been used because it was seized without a warrant” (Landmark Supreme Court Cases and the Constitution: Mapp v. Ohio (1961), 2010). Thus, Mapp v. Ohio set a precedent that evidence (in this instance, pornographic material) found in a person’s home which is protected by the First Amendment cannot be used to convict, especially when it is seized without a search warrant.

Conclusion

In my opinion, the state of Ohio made a great blunder when it convicted Mapps of possessing pornographic material that was found while conducting a search for the bombing suspect. One important sidebar is that at Mapp’s trial in Ohio, “the police officers did not show Mapp and her attorney the alleged search warrant nor explain why they refused to do so” (Mapp v. Ohio (1961): Exclusionary Rule, Due Process, 2014). Clearly, the police officers were at fault here, due to the fact that Mapp was a racially mixed black woman and their erroneous conclusion that the bomber was hiding in her home. Although the exclusionary rule tends to protect the criminal at times, it must be upheld in order to protect innocent citizens from having their rights abused by law enforcement.

References

Landmark Supreme Court cases and the constitution: Mapp v. Ohio (1961).

(2010). Bill of Rights Institute. Retrieved from http://billofrightsinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/MappvOhio.pdf

Mapp v. Ohio. (2014). Legal Information Institute. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/367/643

Mapp v. Ohio (1961): Exclusionary rule, due process. (2014). Landmark Cases of the U.S. Supreme Court. Retrieved from http://www.streetlaw.org/en/landmark/cases/mapp_v_ohio