legal brief

Case Brief

Mapp v. Ohio

Title and Citation: Mapp v. Ohio

367 U.S. 643,81 S Ct.1684

Facts of the case: . On May 23, 1957, three Cleveland police officers arrived at appellant's

residence in that city pursuant to information that ‘a person (was) hiding out in the home, who was

wanted for questioning in connection with a recent bombing, and that there was a large amount of

policy paraphernalia being hidden in the home.’ 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. They advised their headquarters of the situation and undertook a surveillance

of the house. The officers again sought entrance some three hours later when four or more additional

officers arrived on the **1686 scene. When Miss Mapp did not come to the door immediately, at least

one of the several doors to the house was forcibly opened and the policemen gained admittance.

Meanwhile Miss Mapp's attorney arrived, but the officers, having secured their own entry, and

continuing in their defiance of the law, would permit him neither to see Miss Mapp nor to enter the

house. It appears that Miss Mapp was halfway down the stairs from the upper floor to the front door

when the officers, in this highhanded manner, broke into the hall. She demanded to see the search

warrant. A paper, claimed to be a warrant, was held up by one of the officers. She grabbed the ‘warrant’

and placed it in her bosom. A struggle ensued in which the officers recovered the piece of paper and as

a result of which they handcuffed appellant because she had been ‘belligerent’ *645 in resisting their

official rescue of the ‘warrant’ from her person. Running roughshod over appellant, a policeman

‘grabbed’ her, ‘twisted (her) hand,’ and she ‘yelled (and) pleaded with him’ because ‘it was hurting.’

Appellant, in handcuffs, was then forcibly taken upstairs to her bedroom where the officers searched a

dresser, a chest of drawers, a closet and some suitcases. They also looked into a photo album and

through personal papers belonging to the appellant. The search spread to the rest of the second floor

including the child's bedroom, the living room, the kitchen and a dinette. The basement of the building

and a trunk found therein were also searched. The obscene materials for possession of which she was

ultimately convicted were discovered in the course of that widespread search.

Contention of the Parties:

Petitioner: Miss Mapp believes that her 4th amendment rights were violated by an illegal search and

seizure by the officers.

Respondent: The state contends that even if the search were made without authority, or

otherwise unreasonable, it is not prevented from using the unconstitutionally seized evidence at

trial

Issues: If an illegal search occurs and evidence of a crime is detected, should that evidence be

allowed to be admitted into trial.

Decision The Supreme Court held that evidence obtained by unconstitutional search was inadmissible

and vitiated conviction.

Reasoning: If the courts were to allow evidence or confessions that was unlawfully obtained, to be

admitted into court then no one would follow the constitution. It would be assumed that law

enforcement offices could ignore the constitution as long as they found evidence of a crime. This would

obviously be a major blow to our constitutional right to privacy.

Rule of Law: U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4