SEARCH WARRANTS

Search Warrants



Search Warrants

Background Summary And Introduction

Ms. Dollree Mapp and her daughter lived in Cleveland, Ohio. After receiving information that an individual wanted in connection with a recent bombing was hiding in Mapp's house, the Cleveland police knocked on her door and demanded entrance. Mapp called her attorney and subsequently refused to let the police in when they failed to produce a search warrant. After several hours of surveillance and the arrival of more officers, the police again sought entrance to the house. Although Mapp did not allow them to enter, they gained access by forcibly opening at least one door. Once the police were inside the house, Mapp confronted them and demanded to see their warrant. One of the officers held up a piece of paper claiming it was a search warrant. Mapp grabbed the paper but an officer recovered it and handcuffed Mapp "because she had been belligerent". Dragging Mapp upstairs, officers proceeded to search not only her room, but also her daughter's bedroom, the kitchen, dinette, living room, and basement.( Craig, 1999)

Discussion on the case

In the course of the basement search, police found a trunk containing "lewd and lascivious" books, pictures, and photographs. As a result, Mapp was arrested for violating Ohio's criminal law prohibiting the possession of obscene materials. At trial, the court found her guilty of the violation based on the evidence presented by the police. When Mapp's attorney questioned the officers about the alleged warrant and asked for it to be produced, the police were unable or unwilling to do so. Nonetheless, Mapp was found guilty and sentenced to 1 to 7 years in the Ohio Women's Reformatory.( Lewis, 1998)

Upon her conviction, Mapp appealed her case to the Supreme Court of Ohio. Her attorney argued that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal, warrantless search. Because the search was unlawful, he maintained, the evidence was illegally obtained and must also be excluded. In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that "a reasonable argument" could be made that the conviction should be reversed "because the 'methods' employed to obtain the [evidence]. . . were such as to 'offend' a sense of justice." But the Court also stated that the materials were admissible evidence. The Court explained its ruling by differentiating between evidence that was peacefully seized from an inanimate object (the trunk) ...