Mapp v Ohio

1
Mapp v. Ohio
367 U.S. 643 (1961)
2
(No Transcript)
3
Cleveland, Ohio - May 20, 1957 A bomb went off
outside of Don Kings home. Don King was well
known to police for running numbers and
participating in illegal gambling. Racketeering.
King told police that a rival wanted him dead and
gave the police information implicating the rival
and his associates. - Virgil Ogletree Police
inquired about Ogletree and found that he spent
time at Dolly Mapps home in the Shaker Heights
area of Cleveland.
4

• The police, in plain clothes, showed up at Dolly
  Mapps home. Wheres the warrant?. -- The
  police refused to produce the warrant.
• The police and Dolly were involved in a stand off
  for more than 3 hours!
• As Dollys attorney was arriving, the police
  broke down the door.
• Dolly was handcuffed while police searched her
  home.
• Ogletree was found on the first floor - He was
  later cleared as a suspect!

5

• Little Darlings
• Affairs of a Troubadour
• London Stage Affairs
• Memories of a Hotel Man
• Obscene Material ?

Possession of betting slips Possession of Obscene
Materials under Ohio Law Felony charge 7 years
in prison! Not related to the King bombing!
6
Before the trial, Judge Donald Lybarger made a
ruling on the evidence that rendered moot the
veracity of the search warrant. He said the
smutty books and any other evidence seized by
police could be used against Mapp whether the
search warrant was valid or not.
Say What?
What about the Exclusionary rule?! If evidence
of a crime is illegally obtained, should it be
excluded from use at a defendants trial? Does the
end justify the means? Oh wait thats only for
federal cases!
7
Was the search of Mapp's home legal and was the
evidence admissible? If the state did not exclude
the evidence as having been illegally gained, did
Ohio law fail to provide Mapp her 4th Amendment
protection against unreasonable searches and
seizures?
8

• Weeks v. United States (1914), the U.S. Supreme
  Court created the exclusionary rule. That rule
  prevents the federal government from convicting a
  defendant with evidence the government finds
  during an illegal search without a warrant.
• In Wolf v. Colorado (1949), the Supreme Court
  said state and local governments must obey the
  Fourth Amendment by getting a warrant to conduct
  a search. The Court also said, however, that the
  exclusionary rule does not apply to the states

Should that rule be extended, making evidence
gained by an illegal search inadmissible in state
courts as well?
9
On a 6-3 vote, the justices reversed the Ohio
courts decision. Over turning Mapps conviction.
She was free! This decision mandated
that evidence obtained during an illegal search
seizure in violation of a defendants 4th
Amendment right is inadmissible in the state
courts as well as in the federal courts! The
exclusionary rule by means of the 14th Amendment
now applies to the state courts as well as the
federal courts.
10
Exclusion / Confusion The Exclusionary Rule
protects individuals against police misconduct.
Fruits of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine - Wong
Sun v. US (1963) The Good Faith Exception
if the police believe that a search warrant at
the time of execution was legal but later find
that technically is was not, the evidence
obtained is still admissible as long as the
police acted in good faith. U.S. v. Leon (1984).
11
Inevitable Discovery Rule Nix v. Williams
(1984) When evidence would have been discovered
within a short period of time, the method in
which it is obtained is irrelevant.
12
Nothing can destroy a government more quickly
than its failure to observe its own laws, or
worse, its disregard of the charter of its own
existence. Justice Clark
4th
5th
14th