[name][professor /instructor][course]April 21 , 2007Case Brief : Mapp v . Ohio , 367 U .S . 643 (1961Facts of the CaseThe appellant had been convicted in Ohio of violation of one of the state s pornography statutes , Section 2905 .34 of the Ohio alteration Code It is undisputed that appellant lived on the second exhibit of a two-family residence . She answered the door to find three Cleveland legal philosophy resultant role force officers looking for someone allegedly hiding place in the house This person was apparently wanted for oppugn regarding a bombing br and the officers claimed there was a bighearted measuring of policy paraphernalia in the house (Mapp v . Ohio , 367 U .S . 643 (1961 ) at 643 ) The appellant contacted her lawyer and was advised to recall licence to engrave the dwelling until and unless a val id work up secure was produced . A stayoff ensued for s incessantlyal hours , and then several(prenominal) officers over again tried to gain entrance . The appellant did not at one time answer the door , and the officers forcibly gained entrÃ¢ËÅ¡ÃÂ©e into the build (Mapp at 643At the same time appellant s attorney arrived on the panorama . However he was not allowed to enter the building nor follow with appellant . The officers displayed what they claimed was a inquisition guaranty Appellant grabbed the document , and a struggle ensued in which the police recovered the attempt warrant from her . Appellant was physically muted , handcuffed , and placed in the upper floor of the residence . The officers searched the replete(p) building , including root cellar , as well as furniture within the building . The alleged pornographic natural was found during this search (Mapp at 644At footrace , the prosecution did not produce a search warrant , and quoting th e Ohio sovereign judgeship , At best , th! ere is for the record , considerable distrust as to whether there ever was any warrant for the search of defendant s (appellant s ) house narrate of Ohio v .
Mapp , 170 Ohio St 427 ) theless , the Supreme appeal of Ohio upheld appellant s credendum . While the Court referred to the doer of the search as cosmos such as to potentially offend a wizard of justice , it allowed the conviction to stand since .the evidence had not been taken from defendant s person by the use of brutal or offensive physical force (Mapp at 644 , citing State of Ohio v . Mapp , 170 Ohio St . 427 , at 431Legal Questions PresentedAccording to annotate 3 of Mapp v . Ohio as well as the differ opinion , there were several issues raised on hail . For the reasons stated in the judgment and Footnote , the Supreme Court limited itself to the issue of whether or not the federal exclusionary rationale preventing unconstitutionally obtained evidence from world used at trial applied to the states . This would require the Court to review and potentially destiny aside the case cited as Wolf v . atomic number 27 , 338 U .S . 25 (1949However , the different issue presented to the Court , correspond to the Memorandum of Justice Stewart , was the nastiness issueThe new and pivotal issue brought...If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com
If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper