MAPP V. OHIO

Rachel Simmons

Background & Freedom at Issue The 4th and 14th Amendments

With reasonable suspicion of a bomb at the house, the police went to search the home

They entered the house without a search warrant and arrested her

Ohio claimed that the 14th amendment has no guarantees with the fourth amendment in the state courts

In the state courts, they claim that the 14th amendment only limits the rights of the national government

She thought her freedom of thought in the obscenity rule was violated, but the courts disregarded that and focused on the seizure amendment

Decision of the Court

In a 6-3 decision, they overturned her conviction They claimed the courts

could not use the evidence found under the unreasonable search

The point to assuring against an unreasonable search would then be pointless

14th amendment requires that the state courts must follow the Bill of Rights just as much as the federal government

They were at fault that they did not follow the 14th amendment

Interpretation of Rights

Mapp v Ohio allowed for the exclusionary rule to be used the state court cases

Ultimately, under this the 4th amendment was strengthened to the privacy of Americans

It reinforced the fact that the 14th amendment applies to the states

Sources

http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar19.html

http://www.enotes.com/supreme-court-drama/mapp-v-ohio