1 / 7

Mapp Vs. Ohio

Mapp Vs. Ohio. By: Kayleigh Butschle. The Fourth Amendment. This amendment secures people’s personal belongings and property from being unreasonably searched or seized. A Search Warrant is needed in order to enter a person’s house and look through their belongings

nathan
Download Presentation

Mapp Vs. Ohio

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Mapp Vs. Ohio By: Kayleigh Butschle

  2. The Fourth Amendment This amendment secures people’s personal belongings and property from being unreasonably searched or seized. A Search Warrant is needed in order to enter a person’s house and look through their belongings You can only search the places that the warrant states you are allowed to

  3. Before the Case • States were allowed to decide whether or not certain acts were legal. One of these included the search and seizure. Police officers were justified to enter a house unwelcome and use the evidence they found in court even without a search warrant.

  4. Before the case

  5. Mapp V. Ohio Although Mrs. Mapp had been convicted on the state level, the Supreme court had overturned her conviction and ruled in her favor. Justice Tom Clark declared: “We hold that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution [is] inadmissible in a state court….” (Mapp).

  6. Effect This case is important because it had officially made the constitution (Bill of Rights) apply directly to the individual states. The states could now not take away anyone’s constitutional rights inconvenience

  7. Works Cited "Map v. Ohio (1961)." Pearson Education, Inc, 2005. Web. 9 Nov 2010. <http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar19.html>.

More Related