Mapp+vs.+Ohio

The supreme court desicided that she was inocent because there was no search warrant when they searched her self.That is what the supreme court is decided. Three police officers show up at a womens house suspecting a bomb and illegal gambling equipment. They asked to come in to the womens home and she said that if they had a search warrant they could have. Two of the officers left and one stayed the two came back with seven other officers barrged in and flashed a peice of paper that the women took and shoved in her dress while other officers searched the house and did not fing drugs or gambling equipment but they did find pornographic photo wich were illegal at the time unless the were drawings. then the officers forcibly took the paper away from the women and handcuffed her for being belligerent. Mapp said that the photos were not hers they were someone elses they left in the suitcase. No search warrant was introduced at all. This case deals with the fourth amendment. The 4th amendment deals with the right that any government officals or citizens cannot be on your property with out a search warrant. And if they do not have one what ever evidence they had will be thrown away as evidence will never be able to use again in a court of law. That was the amendment used in the court case mapp .vs. ohio
 * What was the final decision of the supreme court?and why did they decide it?**
 * What is the backround of this case? What happened!**
 * What amendment did this case deal with and what does it say?**


 * Joey sandfort**
 * Date: 11/15/11**
 * Name: John Krieg**
 * Date: 11/8/11**

This case has to do with the 4th, 14th,and the 10th amendments. The 4th amendment states that in order to search a land owners property you need a warrant to do so. The 10th amendment came in to play because Ohio thought that they had the right because in the bill of rights the law was two vague. They used the 14th amendment to extent constitutional protections to all state courts. These were the amendments used in the court case of Mapp vs. Ohio.
 * //What amendment did this case deal with and what does it say?//**

Three police officers came to a women’s house in a Cleveland Ohio on the count of being a suspect in a bomb charge along with illegal betting equipment. She said no you may not enter on the fact that you have no warrant, two men left and came back three hours later with back up but with a phony search warrant she took it away they hand cuffed her for being ‘’belligerent’’. Police then searched the house and found nether bombs or betting equipment, but what they did find was a whole different breed of dog. W hat they did find was pornographic materials in a brief case. They arrested her on this account of this. But they had no warrant so the evidence was trash.
 * //What is the background of the case? Summarize what happened!//**

The decision was that the evidence was bad because there was no warrant giving the right to enter the property of the women. This is what and why they decided.
 * //What was the final decision of the Supreme Court and why did they decide this?//**