In this week’s passion blog we will be analyzing the court case of Mapp v. Ohio. On May 23 1957, Dollree Mapp a resident of Cleveland, Ohio was intruded by police officers in her home looking for a suspect accused of a recent bombing threats, gambling, and drug paraphernalia. Police officers did not find the suspect in her home, but would arrest Mapp for possession of obscene materials that found during their search without a search warrant.
Nearly one year after Mapp was arrested, she was taken to court and was convicted for illegally possessing obscene materials. Mapp’s sentence was one too seven years in the Cleveland penitentiary. Alexander L. Kearns (Mapp’s lawyer) appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court on the concept of the search violated Ohio obscenity law and the conduct of obtaining evidence was deemed unconstitutional. The court affirmed the conviction, despite the absence of a search warrant, which meant illegally seized evidence could still be entered into a criminal trial.
Kearns would take this to the next level getting the U.S. Supreme Court involved despite the loss in the Ohio Supreme Court. An invitation was sent to Cleveland attorney, Bernard A. Berkman, representing the American Civil Liberties Union. Berkman urged the court to closely examine the Constitution regarding search and seizure in state courts, due to federal courts prohibiting the presentation of illegally acquired evidence. He justified that it only made sense for it to be applied in state courts if it is illegal in federal court. Eventually, verdict was decided June 20, 1961. The Supreme court deliberated and voted 5-4 for Mapp’s conviction to be overturned, the principle of the 4th & 14th Amendment, which protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures in federal and state court. Mapps was released by the court which allowed her to carry on with her life.
Throughout the case there are three rhetorical situations; Exigence, Audience, and Constraints. The audience is the American people affected by violations of their 4th and 14th amendment. The exigence is the knowledge gained from this case, that protects citizens from unreasonable searches and invites others affected by unreasonable searches to support one another. There are multiple constraints, one being consistent in making decisions, is being fair to both the prosecutor and the defendant, not being rash in judgment being narrow minded. Another constraint being not making a decision based off illegally required evidence, even thought the evidence may be consider illegal, just not obtained properly. Finally, the commonplace is the “law” established under the Founding Fathers. The law is vague causing discrepancies amongst interpreting the law properly with fairness.
Despite this court case being nearly sixty-five years ago, this case paved the way for further protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The main takeaway is government 4th and 14th Amendment continue to protect American citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures regardless if illegal items are found.
https://case.edu/ech/articles/m/mapp-v-ohio