Mapp. v. Ohio Case Essay

It is crucial to concentrate on three factors when performing the path analysis for the Mapp v. Ohio case. The initial case analysis presented in court, a critical evaluation of the defendant and plaintiff, and a final examination of the appeal court follow. Mapp was initially charged in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas and found guilty of breaking the law by having obscene materials in his hands. (Bakken, 2007). The court’s decision was made solely on the premise of the crime that was committed, as shown by the police officers who carried out the illegal search. Mapp’s attorney had made attempts to question the officers about the validity of the warrant although the officers were unwilling to cooperate. They found no evidence related to the fugitive apart from the state’s illegal materials. Mapp was convicted and sentenced to jail in the Ohio Women’s Reformatory. The search conducted was illegal according to ruling previously made in the Wolf vs. Colorado (Broeder, 1961).

The parties involved in the case were Dollree Mapp, the plaintiff and the State of Ohio which was the defendant. For Mapp, the officers had acted improperly by conducting a search without a warrant. The incriminating evidence that the search found was, therefore, better thrown out of the court after which the conviction was to be overturned. Had the 4th amendment not limited the police officers’ prerogatives at the state and the local level, then the law enforcement body at the local level would the mandate to search as they wished. Mapp wanted the exclusionary rule in the federal court to be equally applicable to the proceedings in the states’ courts. The justice department, therefore, had an important decision to make in choosing between convicting criminals regardless of the court implication or protecting the rights of suspects.

On the other hand, the State of Ohio maintained a different ground despite conducting a search without following the correct protocol. The state argued that the violation of the individual’s rights did not prevent it from using the evidence seized in prosecuting the suspect. The 14th amendment on was therefore not a guarantee of the 4th amendment’s protection, and therefore, Ohio had the right to independently as a separate court (Day & Berkman, 1961). Besides, the Bills of Rights would only limit and restrict the National Government’s conduct. An in-depth scrutiny on the two stands held by the defendant and the plaintiff revealed that there was an incongruence in the manner that the States’ laws are executed in the national and at the local level. The Supreme Court was, therefore, an integral part of settling this dispute of a case considered to be sensitive and revolutionary.

Appellate courts are essential in the American judicial system in reviewing and hearing appeals. These appeals are for the legal cases that have passed through a lower court. They are present both in the state and the federal level. In the case, the Ohio Court argued that the exclusionary rule was only applicable to those trials reaching the federal court. The jury at this level, therefore, found Mapp guilty. Mapp had been denied the request for attaining a new trial by the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. Her attorney, however, filed an appeal as a result of the errors in these proceedings. It was, however, unfortunate that the judgment of the lower court upheld on March 1959, something that made Kearns, a Supreme Court attorney, to appeal the decision of the appellate court (Martinez, 2014). To him, the court had failed to define what it meant by obscene material, adequately. Furthermore, those to be prosecuted were the distributors rather than the ones who possessed the materials. The 14th amendment’s due process clause, the equal protection clause and the individual privacy rights were all violated according to the US Supreme Court, and the ruling had to be reversed. Any evidence obtained unlawfully was inadmissible in the federal courts and thus should be the case in the state’s court too. This decision was binding, and all states were given the mandate to ensure that it was carried out for the protection of the constitution. Furthermore, the decision guaranteed the due process of the law, a 14th amendment’s requirement by all states.

References

Bakken, G. M. (2007). Mapp v. Ohio: Guarding Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures, and: A Place of Recourse: A History of the US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, 1803-2003 (review). Ohio History, 114(1), 152-154.

Broeder, D. W. (1961). The Decline and fall of Wolf v. Colorado. Neb. L. Rev., 41, 185.

Day, J. G., & Berkman, B. A. (1961). Search and Seizure and the Exclusionary Rule: A Re Examination in the Wake of Mapp v. Ohio. W. Res. L. Rev., 13, 56.

Martinez, J. M. (2014). The Greatest Criminal Cases: Changing the Course of American Law. ABC-CLIO.