Warning
Info
Warning
Info
Simple English definitions for legal terms
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Read a random definition: fine
A quick definition of Mapp v. Ohio (1961):
Mapp v. Ohio (1961) was a very important court case. The court decided that the Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures, also applies to the states. This means that if the police search someone's home without a warrant, any evidence they find cannot be used in court. This is called the exclusionary rule. The court said that if the exclusionary rule didn't apply to the states, then the Fourth Amendment wouldn't be very useful. The case was about a woman named Dollree Mapp who was convicted of having pornographic books in her home, even though the police didn't have a warrant to search her home. The court said that her conviction was not fair because the evidence was obtained illegally.
A more thorough explanation:
Mapp v. Ohio was a landmark Supreme Court case in 1961. The case was decided 6-3 by the Warren Court. The court held that the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures applied to the states. This meant that unconstitutionally obtained evidence could not be used in state criminal prosecutions.
The case involved Dollree Mapp, whose home in Cleveland, Ohio was forcefully entered by police officers who believed that a suspected bomber was inside the house. While searching her home, officers found pornographic books. Later, Mapp was prosecuted under an Ohio statute for knowing possession of lewd and lascivious material. She was convicted even though the prosecution was unable to produce a valid search warrant.
The majority held that all evidence obtained unconstitutionally, without a search warrant, is inadmissible in state criminal prosecutions. Such evidence was already barred in federal courts, but the majority agreed that the exclusionary rule for unlawfully seized evidence applied to state courts as well, through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court insisted that the exclusionary rule had to apply to the states, or else the Fourth Amendment was essentially useless.
This case set an important precedent for protecting citizens' Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.