Mapp Vs Ohio Case Study

Words: 447
Pages: 2
Open Document
Selective Incorporation: Mapp v. Ohio Many people do not know that despite the Bill of Rights, the state governments have limited our natural rights. The Bill of Rights only protects civil liberties from being encroached by national government, not state governments. The Anti-federalists wanted the Bill of Rights because they were nervous about the Constitution enabling “big government” to limit their rights. However, they did not realize that they would need to worry about protecting their rights from their own state governments. Since the Bill of Rights does not apply to the state governments the Supreme Court started to conduct selective incorporation. This is the process by which Supreme Court protects certain individual rights written in the Bill of Rights from the state governments. The court does this through the 14th amendment, which states that no state can …show more content…
Ohio. The police forcibly entered Dollree Mapp’s home because they received a tip that she was hiding a fugitive. After they found that the fugitive was not there, they kept Mapp in handcuffs and went through her belongings. The police found obscene pictures in her basement, which violated Ohio State’s law to possess such items. Mapp was then convicted in an Ohio court for this violation. Mapp appealed it to Supreme Court claiming that it violated her Fourth Amendment, which states that a person is protected from unreasonable search and seizures. However, at the time the Fourth Amendment only applied to federal government, not state government. In 1961, the Supreme Court decided that evidence acquired unlawfully, without a search warrant couldn’t be used in state courts for convictions. Therefore, the Supreme Court essentially made the Fourth Amendment applicable to all state governments. The national government decided that the Fourth Amendment did not only apply to the federal government, but to all state
Show More

Related Documents: Mapp Vs Ohio Case Study

Mapp Vs. Ohio Case Study

The final decision of the Mapp v. Ohio case by supreme court overruled Ohio. The supreme court also created a lawful procedure to ensure a person’s property doesn’t get invaded. According to the final decision, a search warrant is required to seize evidence. The warrant must be permitted by a judge before going to a person’s property and the warrant must be shown to the person before going inside the property. The exclusionary rule is taken into effect if a person’s Fourth Amendment rights are ignored…

Words 137 - Pages 1

Life: Crime and Criminal Justice Essay

9. Dare (Drug Abuse Resistance Education program) : does it work? NO 10. The Scared Straight program: does it work? No 11. What does it mean to say that a study has not been replicated or can’t be replicated? It is based on one study; it’s not valid. 12. What is a meta-analysis? The use of systematic review of studies. 13. Do most current crime proposal make sense? No; people do not correctly understand the nature of the crime problem in this country and how the criminal justice…

Words 6103 - Pages 25