Access our Homework Help video on the landmark Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio and use our viewing guide below to follow along!
Overview: In 1957, the Cleveland Police Department searched Dollree Mapp’s house without a warrant and seized evidence that was later used to prosecute her. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court determined that using any illegally seized evidence in a court of law was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. This principle was incorporated to apply to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- What does the fourth amendment protect?
- At what level of government did the Fourth Amendment originally apply to?
- What is incorporation?
- Why did the police enter Dollree Mapp’s home? What crime did they end up charging her with?
- What argument did A.L. Kearns make in defense of Mapp?
- Who wrote the majority opinion? What constitutional principle did the majority believe they were upholding?
- Who wrote the dissenting opinion? What constitutional principle did the dissenting justices believe they were upholding?
- Do you agree or disagree with the ruling that the Supreme Court made? Explain your answer.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Case background and primary source documents concerning the Supreme Court case of Mapp v. Ohio. Dealing with incorporation of the Fourth Amendment and the legality of searches and seizures, this lesson asks students to assess the claim that the exclusionary rule helps ensure liberty and justice.
Mapp v. Ohio | BRI’s Homework Help Series
Can the police use illegally seized evidence in a court of law? The landmark Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio addressed this issue, and the decision has had a lasting impact in the United States.
Reading Excerpts from Mapp v. Ohio | A Primary Source Close Read w/ BRI
Join BRI staff Kirk Higgins and Joshua Schmid as they break down excerpts from Mapp v. Ohio, a landmark Supreme Court case that ruled that illegally obtained evidence cannot be used in a state court. They'll explore how the majority and dissenting opinions conveyed very different interpretations of how the 4th and 14th Amendments were meant to work together, and what role the exclusionary rule has in state law. Did this ruling promote or prevent fairness in our justice system?