Laws Lawyers Find Laws Legal Forms State Laws Bills
Home » Find Laws » Cases Laws » Famous Trials » Mapp v. Ohio

Mapp v. Ohio

Listen
What is Mapp v. Ohio (1961)? Mapp v. Ohio is considered to be amongst the most famous Supreme Court cases to have taken place within the 20th century; this case was an appeal to the prior arrest of Dollree Mapp by the Cleveland Police Department. Prior to Mapp v. Ohio, Dollree Mapp – the plaintiff – was arrested after police officers had entered her home in order to search for a fugitive whom Mapp was believed to be harboring; the Cleveland Police Department – following several denials for entry on the part of Mapp – were reported to have falsified a search warrant and forcibly enter the residence of Dollree Mapp. Subsequent to their entry, the police were unable to locate the alleged fugitive; however, they discovered material within the Mapp household that was determined to be “lewd and lascivious” according to police reports – these items were described as books Dollree Mapp was arrested upon this discovery, but was not charged; however, she maintained that not only did the police lack the grounds to arrest her, but her 4th Amendment rights had been violated, as well The 4th Amendment prohibits the unlawful search and seizure of resident belonging to citizens of the United States of America; this amendment also defines the rights of privacy awarded to citizens of the United States The Case Profile of Mapp v. Ohio The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Mapp v. Ohio’: Date of the Trial: 1961 Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard United States Reports Case Number: 367 U.S. 643 Legal Venue: The Supreme Court of the State of Ohio Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Earl Warren Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Mapp v. Ohio case: Dollree Mapp – the plaintiff The State of Ohio – the defendant Verdict Delivered: The verdict ruled that Ms. Mapp’s rights were indeed violated as a result of the failure of the Cleveland Police Departments failure to adhere to the tenets of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States Associated Legislation with regard to Mapp v. Ohio: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Mapp v. Ohio trial: Subsequent to the delivery of the verdict in Mapp v. Ohio, a system of due process was outlined with regard to the search and seizure procedure undertaken within an investigation of a private residence Due process is defined as the government’s obligation to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of its citizen in the event of an arrest; the government must retain an individual’s human rights and liberties – this includes fair, respectful, and ethical treatment devoid of undue violence and harm. If you need legal advice and assistance, contact Ohio lawyers.
Font Size: AAA
Loading...
  • Play
  • Pause
  • Volume:
  • Mute
  • Half
  • Max
  • Mapp V Ohio

    What is Mapp v. Ohio (1961)?

    Mapp v. Ohio is considered to be amongst the most famous Supreme Court cases to have taken place within the 20th century; this case was an appeal to the prior arrest of Dollree Mapp by the Cleveland Police Department. Prior to Mapp v. Ohio, Dollree Mapp – the plaintiff – was arrested after police officers had entered her home in order to search for a fugitive whom Mapp was believed to be harboring; the Cleveland Police Department – following several denials for entry on the part of Mapp – were reported to have falsified a search warrant and forcibly enter the residence of Dollree Mapp.

    Subsequent to their entry, the police were unable to locate the alleged fugitive; however, they discovered material within the Mapp household that was determined to be “lewd and lascivious” according to police reports – these items were described as books

    Dollree Mapp was arrested upon this discovery, but was not charged; however, she maintained that not only did the police lack the grounds to arrest her, but her 4th Amendment rights had been violated, as well

    The 4th Amendment prohibits the unlawful search and seizure of resident belonging to citizens of the United States of America; this amendment also defines the rights of privacy awarded to citizens of the United States

    The Case Profile of Mapp v. Ohio

    The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Mapp v. Ohio’:

    Date of the Trial: 1961

    Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

    United States Reports Case Number: 367 U.S. 643

    Legal Venue: The Supreme Court of the State of Ohio

    Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Earl Warren

    Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Mapp v. Ohio case:

    Dollree Mapp – the plaintiff

    The State of Ohio – the defendant

    Verdict Delivered: The verdict ruled that Ms. Mapp’s rights were indeed violated as a result of the failure of the Cleveland Police Departments failure to adhere to the tenets of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States

    Associated Legislation with regard to Mapp v. Ohio: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Mapp v. Ohio trial:

    Subsequent to the delivery of the verdict in Mapp v. Ohio, a system of due process was outlined with regard to the search and seizure procedure undertaken within an investigation of a private residence

    Due process is defined as the government’s obligation to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of its citizen in the event of an arrest; the government must retain an individual’s human rights and liberties – this includes fair, respectful, and ethical treatment devoid of undue violence and harm. If you need legal advice and assistance, contact Ohio lawyers.

    NEXT: Massachusetts v. EPA

    Related Articles

    Link To This Page

    Comments

    POPULAR IN CASES

    Miranda v. Arizona
    CASES
    Miranda v. Arizona
    Brown v. Board of Education
    CASES
    Brown v. Board of Education
    Guide to Finding a Lawyer

    MORE IN CASES

    Massachusetts v. EPA Massachusetts v. EPA
    Tips