MappvOhio - U.S. Supreme Court MAPP v. OHIO, 367 U.S. 643...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
U.S. Supreme Court MAPP v. OHIO, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) 367 U.S. 643 MAPP v. OHIO. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. No. 236. Argued March 29, 1961. Decided June 19, 1961. All evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Federal Constitution is inadmissible in a criminal trial in a state court. Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 , overruled insofar as it holds to the contrary. Pp. 643-660. 170 Ohio St. 427, 166 N. E. 2d 387, reversed. A. L. Kearns argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Walter L. Greene. Gertrude Bauer Mahon argued the cause for appellee. With her on the brief was John T. Corrigan. Bernard A. Berkman argued the cause for the American Civil Liberties Union et al., as amici curiae, urging reversal. With him on the brief was Rowland Watts. MR. JUSTICE CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court. Appellant stands convicted of knowingly having had in her possession and under her control certain lewd and lascivious books, pictures, and photographs in violation of 2905.34 of Ohio's Revised Code. 1 As officially stated in the syllabus to its opinion, the Supreme Court of Ohio found that her conviction was valid though "based primarily upon the introduction in evidence of lewd and lascivious books and pictures unlawfully seized during an unlawful search of defendant's home . . . ." 170 Ohio St. 427-428, 166 N. E. 2d 387, 388. [367 U.S. 643, 644] On May 23, 1957, three Cleveland police officers arrived at appellant's residence in that city pursuant to information that "a person [was] hiding out in the home, who was wanted for questioning in connection with a recent bombing, and that there was a large amount of policy paraphernalia being hidden in the home." Miss Mapp and her daughter by a former marriage lived on the top floor of the two-family dwelling. Upon their arrival at that house, the officers knocked on the door and demanded entrance but appellant, after telephoning her attorney, refused to admit them without a search warrant. They advised their headquarters of the situation and undertook a surveillance of the house. The officers again sought entrance some three hours later when four or more additional
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 3

MappvOhio - U.S. Supreme Court MAPP v. OHIO, 367 U.S. 643...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online