Skip to main content

Supreme courts decision.

The supreme course decided 6-3 in favor of Mapp that her 4th amendment right of not illegal searches and seizures was infringed upon when the police unlawfully entered her home without a warrant, they said that the evidence could not be used in court. The Justices threw away her claim that her first amendment rights were not violated.

" . . . our holding that the exclusionary rule is an essential part of both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments is not only the logical dictate of prior cases, but it also makes very good sense. There is no war between the Constitution and common sense." —Justice Clark, speaking for the majority

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Works cited

“Landmark Cases of the U.S. Supreme Court.”  Mapp v. Ohio | Www.streetlaw.org , landmarkcases.org/en/landmark/cases/mapp_v_ohio. “{{Meta.pageTitle}}.”  {{Meta.siteName}} , www.oyez.org/cases/1960/236. Duignan, Brian. “Mapp v. Ohio.”  Encyclopædia Britannica , Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 23 Mar. 2017, www.britannica.com/event/Mapp-v-Ohio.
Post a Comment
Read more

What was the violated Amendment?

Dollree Mapps 4th amendment right, no unreasonable searches and seizures, was broken when the police entered her property without a warrant, because they thought she was harboring a bombing suspect.
Post a Comment
Read more

Background of the case?

The case was held on June 19, 1961. Mapp was originally convicted of possessing obscene materials, she initially appealed to the supreme court to say that her first amendment right of freedom of speech was under attack by her prosecution.
Post a Comment
Read more