Mapp+vs.+Ohio


 * Name: Jessi Staros**
 * Date: November 8, 2011**


 * //What amendment did this case deal with and what does it say?//**
 * 1) This case deals with the 4th amendment. It talks about how policemen thought that Dollree Mapp had Illegal betting equipment in here house. They came and asked to enter, but he refused to let them enter without a warrant. The police left, but one stayed. They entered without a warrant they didn’t find the illegal betting equipment, but they did find something else. They were not aloud to use it as evidence, because that was not why they had the warrant written out.
 * //What is the background of the case? Summarize what happened!//**


 * 1) On May 23, 1957, police officers in Surburb, Ohio received information that Dollree Mapp had illegal betting equipment in her house. Three police officers showed up at her door and asked to come into the house. She refused to let them enter without a warrant. Two officers left and one stayed. After a few hours those two officers came back with more officers. They had a warrant this time, so they entered the house with permission. They did not find the illegal betting equipment but they did find something else. They were not allowed to use that as evidence because they wrote the warrant out for illegal betting equipment not anything else.

Dollree Mapp was prosecuted, found guilty, and then she was sentenced for possession of pornographic material. Although, no search warrant was introduced as evidence at her trial. If it were not for the fourth amendment, then this court case would have been thrown in the trash. The fourth amendment states that the police must have a warrant, but the police acted improperly by not showing the warrant. The fourth amendment does not say that you must show the warrant.
 * 1) **//What was the final decision of the Supreme Court and why did they decide this?//**