Mapp vs. Ohio: Illegal Search and Seizure Essay

In the first trial she was given, the prosecution did not provide the search warrant that was used. The prosecution also failed to state why the warrant was not submitted, In fact the prosecution avoided the subject almost entirely. There was a reasonable belief that there was never a search warrant made in the first place, However the courts convicted her guilty anyways, on the grounds that she had broken the law whether the evidence was legally seized or illegally seized. The court also determined that the evidence had not been taken from the defendant’s person by use of brutal force against the defendant. They also stated that there was no law in the state of Ohio that prevented the use of illegally seized evidence, which was also stated in wolf v Colorado, In which the court held that in a prosecution in a state for a state crime the fourteenth amendment doesn’t prevent the use of evidence obtained by an illegal search and seizure. She was then sentenced to a women’s reformatory for a year, where she began to make her appeal to the Supreme Court.

Another case that establishes the premise for determining the validity of the search includes United States v. Matlock. The question before the Court in Matlock was whether the third party's consent for the police to search the defendant's house was "legally sufficient" to render the evidence admissible at trial. Police officers arrested the defendant in his front yard, but did not request his permission to search the house. Instead, some of the police officers approached the house and requested permission to search from Mrs. Graff, who lived in the house with defendant. Mrs. Graff consented to the search and the officers found nearly $5,000 in cash in a closet. Both the district court and the court of appeals excluded the evidence from the trial, finding that Mrs. Graff did not have the authority to consent to the search. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to settle this evidentiary issue. Justice White, for the Court, espoused the

The California Court of Appeal found the warrantless search was justified by Rojas’s written and verbal consent. The court agreed with the majority of the federal circuits, in that, this case was “indispensable to the decision in Randolph.” The decision was ultimately concluded that a tenant’s objection has no force if he or she is not physically present. Therefore held, the warrantless search was lawful because Rojas; a co-tenant, consented. Fernandez was denied review in the California Court of Appeal, however certiorari was granted.

The term Exclusionary Rule is a legal designation utilized within the criminal justice system put into effect by U.S. Supreme Court precedent that incriminating information or evidence must be taken in accordance with the Constitutional standings of due process. The Exclusionary Rule is specifically

Probable cause is one of most important among the three levels of justification sufficient for a valid Fourth Amendment search because of its foundational nature. The first level of justification considers if law enforcement officials have probable cause to perform a search or seizure. It determines that there is sufficient reason based on known facts that a crime has been committed (Worrall, 2017). In some situations law enforcement must first present this information to a judge, who issues a search warrant, but the majority of searches are warrantless. Therefore, it is vital for law enforcement agencies to make certain that they function within due process and other relevant legal instruments (Worrall, 2017). For instance, in United States v. Pabon (2017), Virginia state law enforcement pulled over a car, in which Pabon was riding with the driver, who committed a traffic violation. There was information that suggested the route in which the driver traveled was used to transport individuals who body packaged drugs and there was also an indication that Pabon may be transporting narcotics (findlaw). When the case was heard, the court ruled the police had probable cause to believe that he was committing a narcotic related offense. Similarly, in the court case of California vs. Acevedo (1991), police observed the respondent leaving an apartment with a brown paper bag in hand, that he placed in his trunk before leaving. It was believed that contents of the brown paper bag were the size of marijuana packages the officers had seen earlier that day. As Acevedo drove away, he was stopped and the trunk

The 14th Amendment provides that no government shall take away the individual right to life, liberty, and property, within its jurisdiction, without due process of law.

“the U.S. Supreme Court in 1873, ruled that a citizen 's "privileges and immunities," as protected by the Constitution 's Fourteenth Amendment against the states, were limited to those spelled out in the

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.(1)

In the case of Chimel v. California (1969) officers went to Chimel’s home with the intentions of arresting him for a previous burglary. While they were at Chimel’s home they proceeded to conduct a search of his house and found several items which later lead to his conviction. This search was illegal, however, due to the fact the officers did not obtain a search warrant before conducting the search of his home. Chimel’s case was sent to the Supreme Court where they overturned the decision because the officers were limited to searching only Chimel and the area within his immediate control.

The first issue in this case was whether or not the evidence collected in the case should have been suppressed or not. When Moore was first arrested the vehicle in which he was driving was then searched. Moore thought that the evidence should have been suppressed do to the fact that he was arrested on a misdemeanor charge where there doesn’t have to be an arrest made. Since the officers arrested him and then preceded to search his car Moore believed that this was a violation of his fourth amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizures. According to the case Gerstein v. Pugh and Brinegar v. United States if arresting officers have probable cause that a person committed even a minor offense in his presence the arrest is deemed constitutional reasonable. The case California v.

Mapp v. Ohio was a historical case in which the United States Supreme Court declared that all evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, could not be held against you in court ("Landmark Cases of the U.S. Supreme Court," 2015). The exclusionary rule and selective incorporation were applied to this case. The ?exclusionary rule? which prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution along with selective incorporation which is how the rights out lined in the Constitution apply to the states and the courts must acknowledge these rights. (The Definition of Selective Incorporation, 2015). This case was also significant due to the fact that the decision would open up the court to a number of difficult cases concerning how to apply the exclusionary rule.

Before the Supreme Court case of Mapp vs. Ohio in 1960, the states were able to interpret the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which covers the search and seizure of individuals and their property. Interpretation caused the states to disagree on what was justifiable search and seizure according to the constitution. Under the Fourth Amendment, a court issued warrant along with probable cause was required for search and seizures. The states all had different opinions of the definition of what an unreasonable search or seizure was. Therefore, each state’s enforcement was different.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fourth amendment of United States constitution states that it is “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (Fourth Amendment - U.S. Constitution, n.d.)

The 14th amendment of the United States Constitution states that any state shall not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" (Legal).