Αποτελέσματα Αναζήτησης
11 Μαρ 2017 · Case Summary of Mapp v. Ohio: Mapp’s home was searched absent a warrant. The search yielded the discovery of material classified as “obscene” under Ohio state law. The Supreme Court held that evidence obtained from an unreasonable search and seizure could not be used against the accused in criminal state court.
21 Φεβ 2024 · Dollree Mapp (defendant) was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an illegal search by police officers who lacked a proper warrant. The United States Supreme Court reviewed her case, challenging the admissibility of evidence obtained through unconstitutional means by state officials.
Miss Mapp and her daughter by a former marriage lived on the top floor of the two-family dwelling. Upon their arrival at that house, the officers knocked on the door and demanded entrance, but appellant, after telephoning her attorney, refused to admit them without a search warrant.
After failing to gain entry on an initial visit, the officers returned with what purported to be a search warrant, forcibly entered the residence, and conducted a search in which obscene materials were discovered. The petitioner was tried and convicted for these materials. Synopsis of Rule of Law.
The United States Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio, holding that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by the same authority, inadmissible in a state court.
Dollree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an admittedly illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. She appealed her conviction on the basis of freedom of expression. Were the confiscated materials protected from seizure by the Fourth Amendment?
In Mapp, police officers entered Dollree Mapp’s home without a search warrant and found obscene materials there. Mapp was convicted of possessing these materials, but challenged her conviction.
