Mapp v Ohio (1961) – FYS 100 – 34: The Rights of the Criminally Accused

Mapp v Ohio was a case reviewed by the Court in 1961 that dealt with search and seizure rights. Police had reason to believe that Dollree Mapp conducted numerous illegal activities in her Cleveland home and that she had been tipped off before previous raids. In May of of 1957 police attempted to enter Mapp’s home on the grounds that she was harboring a fugitive. Mapp did not consent to a search so the police kept the house under surveillance while requesting a warrant to enter the home and hours later the police forcibly entered. Mapp’s attorney appeared but he was not allowed into the home by Police, and Mapp began an argument with officers after one of the officers showed her what he claimed to be a warrant. Police then proceeded to search the house, finding no evidence of the fugitive but finding obscene pictures that were illegal under Ohio law. At trial, the police offered no warrant to the judge, and had no explanation for the lack of a warrant. Mapp was sentenced to jail due to her posession of the images, but her attorney appealed to the Supreme Court, on the grounds that it was a violation of her first amendment. The Court, however, were more interested in the exploration of the search and seizure dilemma brought forth by the case.

The Court ruled in Mapp’s favor, with six of the nine judges agreeing that the search violated Mapp’s Fourth Amendment rights. Justice Clark wrote the opinion of the court and cited Boyd v United States as part of the reasoning for the decision. In Boyd v United States it was determined that it is the duty of courts to protect the civil liberties that citizens were are granted under the Fourth Amendment. Justice Clark also cited Week v United States in which it was determined that illegally obtained evidence could not be used to prosecute criminals. This was relevant to the Mapp case because the evidence was obtained by police during an unwarranted search and, as such, should not be allowed to be used in a court of law.

Overall, I think that despite the circumstances, the police were wrong to conduct a search without a warrant. Even though they did have strong suspicion of wrongdoing, that does not mean that they have the right to enter her home without proper legal backing. I also believe that if they had a strong enough suspicion, they should have simply gathered evidence and then obtained a warrant before attempting to enter the house, as their failed attempt to enter with Mapp’s consent only gave her more time to get rid of any evidence that may have been inside of the house. I agree that it is frustrating to police to repeatedly have to obtain a warrant when they know the criminal is being tipped off, but I do not believe that constitutes a warrantless search, and believe that this issue was more of an internal issue within the police than anything else.

Destiny Pryor says:

October 24, 2016 at 2:20 pm

I agree with you on all the points you made within your concluding paragraph. The internal issues within the police department and the officers shouldn’t have affected Mapp, but they did. The mistakes of the officers are clearly noticeable and shouldn’t have been a question. A warrant is an essential piece of making an arrest, but sometimes it can be extremely difficult in a present situation.

It is interesting to me that Mapp’s attorney tried to prove that the search violated her First Amendment rights. The freedom of speech has been a liberty of US citizens since the beginning of time. I would assume that it takes very serious words or content to violate this amendment. Proving that an officer warrantlessly searched someone and violated their Fourth Amendment rights seems “easier” to accomplish. Proving that someone’s First Amendment rights had been violated seems extremely difficult; just like in Texas v. Johnson. I believe it made more sense to turn this into a Fourth Amendment case because Mapp had more of a chance winning the case once she proved that the Cleveland police officers failed to do their job. Your points throughout this post were completely accurate. Great job!

Olivia Justis says:

October 24, 2016 at 4:52 pm

I agree with your argument that the police should have simply waited to obtain a warrant before entering and searching Mapp’s home. In many of the Supreme Court cases we have reviewed thus far regarding the Fourth Amendment, I am baffled by the number of rulings that would have been entirely reversed had the police officer(s) simply obtained and followed legal search warrants prior to conducting their searches. Cases like Arizona v. Gant and United States v. Jones would have likely resulted in different rulings had officers properly followed and legally obtained search warrants prior to arrest. The ruling on this case (Mapp v. Ohio), in my opinion, should have been unanimous. While I appreciate the authority of stare decisis and the argument made in the dissenting opinion, I do not believe that reaffirming past rulings should take priority over examining the present constitutionality of a current case.

I also find it interesting that the Court did not make a First Amendment ruling on this case because, traditionally, cases dealing with obscenity are addressed from a First Amendment perspective. In a similar case, Jacobellis v. Ohio, the court addressed and ruled on obscenity from a First Amendment standpoint. However, I appreciate and agree that the more pressing issue regarding this case was the legality of the search the officers conducted within Mapp’s home. I also think that you raise a very important point… Officer suspicion does not invite police to conduct searches without consent from the court.

David Miller says:

October 25, 2016 at 5:31 pm

This case can be hard to connect to because it deals with because it deals with a first amendment issue that his since been overturned and a gray-area 4th amendment search issue. I agree with you and the court that the police were wrong in conducting a search without a warrant, and even worse, conducting a search with a fake warrant. An officers suspicion is not enough to forcibly enter a house. However, the officers still should have tried to search the house with consent, considering finding a suspected fugitive is very time sensitive. Also, Mapp probably would not have known to hide the obscene pictures, but nothing would be for sure. As usual with the cases we have been reading, the legal troubles would have been avoided had the officers taken the time needed to obtain a warrant.