0
Mapp v. Ohio applied the "exclusionary rule" prohibiting evidence gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against warrantless searches from being used as evidence in a state court prosecution. This standard was already in effect for the Federal government as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Weeks v. US, (1914).
In other words, today, state authorities cannot enter your home without a warrant and gather any illegal material therein, and then prosecute you based on such material. This represents a protection of privacy that helped establish the foundation for using substantive due process to protect other fundamental rights inferred from the Constitution and its interpretation.
Case Citation:
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643 (1961)
For more information, see Related Questions, below.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
How did Mapp v Ohio change the Constitution?
Mapp v Ohio, 367 US 643 (1961)Mapp v Ohio didn't change the Constitution, it simply incorporated the Fourth Amendment to the states, requiring them to adhere to that portion of the Bill of Rights and to follow the "exclusionary rule" established in Weeks v US, (1914).For more information, see Related Questions, below.
Who were the parties in Mapp v Ohio?
The parties in Mapp v. Ohio were Dolree "Dolly" Mapp, the petitioner/appellant, and the State of Ohio, the respondent/appellee.Case Citation:Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643 (1961)For more information, see Related Questions, below.
What was Dollree Mapp charged with in the Supreme Court case Mapp Ohio?
having obscene books
What was Dollree Mapp's ethnic heritage?
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643 (1961)Dollree Mapp was African-American.To view a picture of Dollree Mapp, see Related Links, below.
Who was the defendant in the mapp v Ohio 1962 case?
The Appellant, or Petitioner, in Mapp v. Ohio was Dolree "Dolly" Mapp, a Cleveland woman convicted of possessing obscene materials after police conducted an illegal search of her home because they thought she was harboring a suspect in the bombing of legendary boxing promoter Don King's home. The Appellee, or Respondent, was the State of Ohio, which was defending a challenge of the state statute under which Mapp was convicted as being constitutionally overbroad under the First Amendment.The Fourth Amendment issue was introduced in an Amicus brief written by the ACLU, and not argued as part of the case before the Supreme Court.Case Citation:Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643 (1961)For more information, see Related Questions, below.
When did the Supreme Court hear and decide the Mapp vs Ohio case?
nice
The Supreme Court case of Mapp v Ohio established the?
exclusionary rule
What were the results of Mapp v Ohio?
The primary result of Mapp v. Ohio, (1961) was that the US Supreme Court incorporated the Fourth Amendment to the States and applied the Exclusionary Rule originally established in Weeks v. US, (1914). The Exclusionary Rule prohibits the prosecution from using evidence obtained illegally (in this case, as the result of wrongful search and seizure) to convict the defendant.More InformationDollree Mapp won her US Supreme Court case, Mapp v. Ohio,(1961), by a vote of 6-3, and her conviction for possession of pornography was vacated, ending the seven-year prison sentence Ohio imposed in 1958.Although Mapp's attorney argued originally argued the Ohio law under which Mapp was convicted was unconstitutional because it was overbroad and infringed on her First Amendment rights, the Supreme Court ultimately decided the case on the basis of a Fourth Amendment search and seizure violation, incorporating that Amendment to the states and extending the federal "exclusionary rule" to prohibit illegally obtained evidence from being used against the defendant in court.Case Citation:Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643 (1961)
Famous supreme court case dealing with probable cause?
Mapp vs. Ohio
Was the decision of the Mapp v Ohio case loose or strict construction?
Loose constuction.
What appellate court heard the mapp v Ohio case?
i like dog food in my cereal
What are the related cases with Mapp v Ohio?
There are no other 'related' cases. The US Supreme Court only takes one representative case for review when considering the constitutionality of a law. If, indeed, there even were other cases, ONLY the Mapp v. Ohio case was chosen.
