Mapp vs. Ohio (1961)
Details of the Case: Police searched Dollree Mapp's home for a fugitive and found obscene materials and they convicted her for having these. Mapp said that her owning these materials was a protected action under the 1st Amendment due to freedom of expression.
Decision and Justification: 6 for Mapp, 3 against. The court declared that since these materials were obtained by the police in an illegal search and seizure that the materials could not be used in court.
Lasting Effect: All illegally obtained evidence cannot be used in court against someone due to the outcome of Mapp vs. Ohio, but the court decides when this exclusionary rule applies.
Important Details: The police had initially been denied access to this house - Mapp had said she wouldn't allow them inside unless they had a search warrant - and later entered forcibly after Mapp didn't open the door when they had a warrant in order to search for the fugitive, a bombing suspect.
Decision and Justification: 6 for Mapp, 3 against. The court declared that since these materials were obtained by the police in an illegal search and seizure that the materials could not be used in court.
Lasting Effect: All illegally obtained evidence cannot be used in court against someone due to the outcome of Mapp vs. Ohio, but the court decides when this exclusionary rule applies.
Important Details: The police had initially been denied access to this house - Mapp had said she wouldn't allow them inside unless they had a search warrant - and later entered forcibly after Mapp didn't open the door when they had a warrant in order to search for the fugitive, a bombing suspect.