Mapp vs. Ohio (1961), Essay Example

The fourth amendment was not acted upon before the 1960s by the court system or the police department. Before the fourth amendment was enforced the police officers would often frisk the suspects that were detained or pulled over when they felt like it. It wasn’t until 1968, when a police officer observing three suspicious men walking in and out of a corner store, the officers frisk them and found several guns. In court the three men were found guilty, but also their fourth amendment was invoked, prohibiting officers from random frisking. (Nolo, 2013) More importantly the case that changed the fourth amendment happened in 1961, Mapp vs. Ohio (1961). Within this paper we will be examining at how the fourth amendment is applied to local and state governments. Using the case of Mapp vs. Ohio (1961) as a precedent, the objectives of this cases is to state the facts, utilize the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine within the Mapp vs. Ohio case, and apply the rule of law to the case study discussing the ruling of the fictitious scenario.

In this fictitious scenario in contrast to Mapp vs. Ohio (1961), Detective Quick Draw used a confidential informant to provide him with information in regards to local drug dealer Sally Martin. The address that they are monitoring is known for being a busy drug house, where activity is suspicious of drug deals being made. In order to confirm his suspicions, Detective Quick Draws sends in his informant, Sneaky Pete. Sneaky Pete returns 20 minutes later scoring a deal of cocaine. Sneaky Pete informs the detective that there is a rectangular package sitting in an open garbage bag, with digital scales on the counters. Informed with this information, the detective feels they have probable cause to believe Sally Martin is running a major narcotics ring. He seeks a search warrant from Judge Justice Worthy, however Judge is in middle of legal proceedings and he cannot obtained a warrant for at least an hour. As time ticks away, the officers monitor more suspicious activity going in and out of the Sally Martin’s house. After a while he sees a group of people enter, and immediately causes for uniform backup, and raids the home. The search turns up no hard evidence of a major drug ring, the package turns out to be nothing more than trash, and the scales are gone. The police only discover a bag of heroin in Sally Martin’s night stand, and a gun that she was not permitted to possess. Sally Martin is charged, but her attorney filed a motion to suppress the evidence.

In the case of Mapp vs. Ohio (1961) was a landmarked case in the criminal procedure where the Supreme Court found that the evidence obtained was in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against, “unreasonable searches and seizures” could not be used the criminal prosecution of the federal or state courts. (Case Briefs, 2013) The facts of the case were that three Cleveland Police offers arrived at Mapps residence in pursuant of information about a bombing suspect. When officers knocked at the residence, Mapp refused entry, and called her lawyer. The officers returned three hours later, with a purporting search warrant and forced their way in. Mapps was placed under arrest for belligerence, the police conducted a widespread search in her home, where they found obscene materials in a trunk found in the basement. Mapps was ultimately convicted of possessing the obscene materials. The judgment of the case was that they forcefully entered in on the premises of looking for a bombing suspect and equipment, however she was found guilty of the pornographic material, by “exclusionary rule”, so the search was justified and Mapps was guilty.

The exclusionary rule deemed when a judge deems a search unreasonable, a remedy to deter police misconduct in obtaining evidence. (Legal-Dictionary, nd.) Within this matter the judge can exclude evidence that is incriminator or if there was police misconduct, which can lose the case for lack of proof. In the Mapp case, the Supreme Court found that it applied to the state government in proceedings of the Fourteenth Amendment (due process clause). In regards to the fruit of the poisonous tree, the evidence that was illegally obtained during the illegal search of Mapps homes was “tainted”. The evidence should not have been permissible in court under this doctrine, which is an extension of the exclusionary rule.

In regards to the scenario, they did enter into Sally Martin’s home without a search warrant. However, unlike the Mapps case, they cops had probable cause to enter the premises. While they didn’t find evidence to tie into a massive drug ring, the location did have a lot of suspicious activity. The informant used was able to buy drugs from the suspect, and with that the police could have probable cause. The evidence seized is up to the judge to decide in conviction, and the case can continue since they have other evidence to prove the suspect was guilty. Under the exclusionary rule has its exceptions, where the office in the case of this scenario acted on good faith, and relied on information which he received from an confidential informant provided to search the location. Since they had evidence of drug activity and information about drug paraphernalia, “the police are authorized to make a warrantless search when the time it would take to get a warrant would jeopardize public safety or lead to the loss of important evidence” (Nolo, 2013). This could have been used in Mapps case, in regards to bombing suspect, but as far as this scenario, as too much activity was coming in and out, the potential loss of evidence was great.

Mapps appealed to the Supreme Court, which overturned the ruling of the Ohio Courts in violation of her fourth amendment right. The evidence was inadmissible under the exclusionary rule and by extension the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. Based on this information, this does not apply to the case scenario. Mapps was not being monitored and not under suspicions of illegal activity like Sally Martin. The confidential informant brought drugs from the location, and informed of drug paraphernalia in the home. Even if the evidence was proven to be inadmissible, in the case of bag of heroin and the gun. The judge has more than enough evidence to convict Sally Martin of selling and possessing drugs with the intent to distribute. The judge would still find Sally Martin guilty.

References

Mapps v. Ohio. (2013). Case Briefs. Retrieved from http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-keyed-to-weinreb/the-fourth-amendment-arrest-and-search-and-seizure/mapp-v-ohio-4/2/

Probable Cause. (2013). Legal Dictionary. Retrieved from http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1618

Search and Seizure. (2013). The Free Dictionary. Retrieved from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/The+Exclusionary+Rule+and+the+Fruit+of+the+Poisonous+Tree+Doctrine

Search Warrants: What They Are and When They’re Necessary. (2013). NOLO. Retrieved from http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/search-warrant-basics-29742.html

Understanding Search and Seizure Law. (2013). NOLO. Retrieved from http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/search-seizure-criminal-law-30183.html’