mapp v ohio
The Mapp Vs Ohio Supreme Court Case was a turning point in our nation's history. It changed our legal system by forming the exclusionary rule, which in turn changed the way prosecution of a criminal is performed. On May 23, 1957, three Cleveland police officers arrived at Dolly Mapp's home. They had reason to believe that paraphernalia and a fugitive of a recent bombing had been hiding out there. The officers asked if they could search the home without a search warrant, with the advice of her attorney she refused. Three hours later, four more police officers arrived to the scene. They knocked on the door but Ms. Mapp did not respond immediately. The officers then forcibly entered the home by knocking down the door and windows. Ms. Mapp demanded to see a warrant; but an officer showed her a blank piece of paper that he claimed to be a warrant. An aggravated with the situation, Ms. Mapp took the warrant and wiped her bosom with it. The officers arrested her an account she was "belligerent" and "rude". While Ms. Mapp was in handcuffs, the police conducted an extremely though search of the house by breaking things and search through private drawers and desk. They found no evidence of a fugitive and of anything bomb
http://northport.k12.ny.us/~npthscc/Patch/regreview.html. 1999 5. " Mapp v. Ohio". World book Encyclopedia, 1995, volume 13, pp.78-79 6. Smith, Duane E. We the people, The Citizens and the Constitution, This decision has greatly affected our legal system as well. The exclusionary rule was basically formed by giving up on one priority over the other. The question is, weather or not it is more important to protect the innocent from rude invasions, or to capture and convict criminals. The Court decided it is far more important to protect the innocent. The judges felt this would be the best way to protect people from being deprived of their rights by the police and government. As a result many situations have arose where a criminal has been set free because of the exclusionary rule. Which has been a major result for controversy. When Justice Harlan gave his dissenting opinion, he was fully aware of the situation that could be arising from this decision. He knew that criminals would be free because of this and totally disagreed with it. He said "In this instance, for here we are reviewing not a determination that what the state police did was constitutionally permissible (since the state court quite evidently assumed that it was not), but a determination that appellant was properly found guilty of conduct which, for present purpose, it is to be assumed the State could constitutionally punish." He was referring to how he felt that it should not matter how someone gains the evidence to prosecute a criminal; the only thing that should matter is weather the person did it or not. If one commits a crime, they ultimately should be punished, there should be no loot-poles around it.
Some common words found in the essay are:
Ms Mapp, Justice Harlan, Ohio Exclusionary, Federal Courts, Process Clause, Justice Clack, Fourteenth Amendment, Supreme Court, Dolly Mapp's, Steward Feeling, ms mapp, due process, exclusionary rule, supreme court, legal system, convict criminals, mapp vs ohio, wolf vs, mapp vs, vs colorado, search home, rights due process, wolf vs colorado, convict criminals rights, person commits crime,
Approximate Word count = 1654
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
