Mapp v. Ohio
United States Supreme Court
367 U.S. 643 (1961)
Police got a tip that a suspect wanted for questioning related to a bombing was hiding in Dollree Mapp’s (defendant) home. Officers forcibly entered the home without Mapp’s consent. When Mapp demanded to see the warrant, police showed her a piece of paper purported to be a “warrant.” However, when Mapp took the “warrant,” police engaged in a physical altercation to retrieve it from her. After searching the home, the officers found and seized books and photos that were introduced as evidence in Mapp’s criminal trial for possessing lewd and obscene materials in violation of Ohio state law. Mapp was convicted, despite the trial courts admission that there was no evidence that the police ever obtained a warrant to search Mapp’s home. The Ohio Supreme Court sustained the conviction, even though it concluded there was a reasonable argument for reversal due to the unjust manner in which the evidence was obtained. Mapp appealed to the United States Supreme Court, claiming that her conviction was the product of an unreasonable search and seizure.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Clark, J.)
The holding and reasoning section is for members only and includes:
- A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
- A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
- The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).
To access this section, please give Quimbee a try, it's free to get started.
Concurrence (Black, J.)
Dissent (Harlan, J.)