Mapp v. Ohio
- Decided
- October 9, 1961
- Docket
- 236
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 9,088 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that the Fourth Amendment, and particularly the exclusionary rule, is applicable to states through the Fourteenth Amendment — United States v. Doyle (2011)
- holding that the Fourth Amendment is incorporated and applied to the states by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment — United States v. Everett Oshae Brown (2005)
- holding that the right to privacy embodied in the Fourth Amendment is enforceable against the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment — State v. IBARRA-CISNEROS (2011)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Justice Clark delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellant stands convicted of knowingly having had in her possession and under her control certain lewd and lascivious books, pictures, and photographs in violation of § 2905.34 of Ohio’s Revised Code.[1] As officially stated in the syllabus to its opinion, the Supreme Court of Ohio found that her conviction was valid though “based primarily upon the introduction in evidence of lewd and lascivious books and pictures unlawfully seized during an unlawful search of defendant’s home . . . .” 170 Ohio St. 427-428, 166 N. E. 2d 387, 388.
[*644] On May 23,1957, three Cleveland police officers arrived at appellant’s residence in that city pursuant to information that “a person [was] hiding out in the home, who was wanted for questioning in connection with a recent bombing, and that there was a large amount of policy paraphernalia being hidden in the home.” Miss Mapp and her daughter by a former marriage lived on the top floor of the two-family dwelling. Upon their arrival at that house, the officers knocked on the door and demanded entrance but appellant, after telephoning her attorney, refused to admit them without a search warrant. They advised their headquarters of the situation and undertook a surveillance of the house.
Cite this
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.