Mapp v. Ohio

1. Mapp v. Ohio Rachel Simmons

2. Background & Freedom at Issue • The 4th and 14th Amendments • With reasonable suspicion of a bomb at the house, the police went to search the home • They entered the house without a search warrant and arrested her • Ohio claimed that the 14th amendment has no guarantees with the fourth amendment in the state courts • In the state courts, they claim that the 14th amendment only limits the rights of the national government • She thought her freedom of thought in the obscenity rule was violated, but the courts disregarded that and focused on the seizure amendment

3. Decision of the Court • In a 6-3 decision, they overturned her conviction • They claimed the courts could not use the evidence found under the unreasonable search • The point to assuring against an unreasonable search would then be pointless • 14th amendment requires that the state courts must follow the Bill of Rights just as much as the federal government • They were at fault that they did not follow the 14th amendment

4. Interpretation of Rights • Mapp v Ohio allowed for the exclusionary rule to be used the state court cases • Ultimately, under this the 4th amendment was strengthened to the privacy of Americans • It reinforced the fact that the 14th amendment applies to the states

5. Sources • http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar19.html • http://www.enotes.com/supreme-court-drama/mapp-v-ohio