Is anyone familiar with the court case Mapp v. Ohio?

Question

If so could you please help me?.........

What was the issue?

What was the rule?

What was the analysis?

What was the conclusion?

I need all the help i can get

Answer 1

Mapp v. Ohio is a court case that protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can find the answers to your questions at the link below.

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

In Mapp, there was a statute passed by Congress that the states must follow the federal rules of evidence. The question was did Ohio give up the right to have their own rules of evidence, when they gave their sovereignty over to the federal government. The court could say that under the smaller necessary and proper clause in the 1st amendment (which is where the supremacy clause is that describes the powers that the states gave up) that it’s necessary for a fair trial. If the court decided that it wouldn’t be very controversial because congress already reached the same decision (through the statute). Here Mapp wanted the rules of the 4th amendment to apply to the Ohio, but previously it was decided that the 4th amendment did not apply to the states. But other amendments such as the 13th, 14th, and 15th, do apply to the states. So the due process clause of the 14th amendment does apply to the states. So the question here was does the 14th amendment include the provisions that are described in the 4th amendment? Mapp v. Ohio said that they do. Here the court is looking at a taking of Mrs.Mapp’s property, which falls under the 4th amendment. But Mrs.Mapp is claiming that there was a violation of the 14th amendment, the due process clause. Then you look to see if the due process clause in the 14th amendment is the same as the due process in the 5th amendment. You could look at the historical meaning of the phrase. Historically it seems that due process was just a way of giving people equal access to the courts. So it gives the SC the power as an umpire to make sure the laws of Ohio are equally enforced to people on one side of town as well as people form another side of town. But since due process clause is next to the equal protection clause, that means they mean different things, and that the equal protection clause just mean that people can all have equal access to education for example. (EX: in cases like Brown v. Board of education) The court here decided that the due process clause made the bill of rights apply to the states, which was an activist decision (since there were some previous butcher laws that tried to do what the due process clause is doing here)

Justice Blacks opinion: he thought that we should just replace the due process clause with the “bill of rights.” That way only the bill of rights would apply to the states and nothing else. So our ideas of guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” would not apply to the states. But obviously we did not adopt his theory.

Answer 4

Mapps V Ohio

Answer 5

This case incorporated the 4th amendment It also imposed the Exclusionary Rule. Mapp was a madam,she led a "colorful life". Three officers went to her house to talk to her about a bombing-she refused to talk to them because they did not have a warrant. A few hrs. later-3/4 officers showed up at her house again. This time they came into the house, she demanded a warrant.1 of the officers help up the paper,.she grabbed it and stuck it in her chest. The officer grabs it out and handcuffs her. At court, no search warrant was produced by prosecution.They search the entire house. In the basement, they find a footlocket which contained pornography(which was a felony to possess at that time). She was sentenced 3 years for the porn.She took it to SC by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari. The SC decided if they wanted to look at the case based on the writ they had to look at the 1st amendment because of the porn relating to free speech. But because of all the problems with illegal searches the SC decided to do something about the invasion of 4th amendment rights instead. Mapps v.Ohio reversed the Wolf(v.Colorado) decision and made Weeks apply to State Courts.