Mapp v. Ohio - wikipedia Mapp v. Ohio Mapp v. Ohio Supreme Court of the United States Argued March 29, 1961 Decided June 19, 1961 Full case name Dollree Mapp v. State of Ohio Citations 367 U.S. 643 ( more ) 81 S. Ct. 1684 ; 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 ; 1961 U.S. LEXIS 812 ; 86 Ohio L. Abs. 513 ; 16 Ohio Op. 2d 384 ; 84 A.L.R. 2d 933 Prior history Defendant convicted, Cuyahoga County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas ; affirmed, Ohio Court of Appeals ; affirmed, Ohio Supreme Court 166 N.E. 2d 387 ( Ohio 1960 ) Subsequent history Rehearing denied, 368 U.S. 871 ( 1961 ) Holding The Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth, excludes unconstitutionally obtained evidence from use in criminal prosecutions. Ohio Supreme Court reversed. Court membership Chief Justice Earl Warren Associate Justices Hugo Black Felix Frankfurter William O. Douglas Tom C. Clark John M. Harlan II William J. Brennan, Jr. Charles E. Whittaker Potter Stewart Case opinions Majority Clark, joined by Warren, Black, Douglas, Brennan Concurrence Black Concurrence Douglas Concurrence Stewart Dissent Harlan, joined by Frankfurter, Whittaker Laws applied U.S. Const. amends. IV, XIV This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings Wolf v. Colorado ( 1949 ) Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 ( 1961 ), was a landmark case in criminal procedure, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against `` unreasonable searches and seizures, '' may not be used in state law criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well as in federal criminal law prosecutions in federal courts as had previously been the law. The Supreme Court accomplished this by use of a principle known as selective incorporation ; in Mapp this involved the incorporation of the provisions, as interpreted by the Court, of the Fourth Amendment which are applicable only to actions of the federal government into the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause which is applicable to actions of the states. Contents 1 Circumstances of the case 2 Decision 3 See also 4 References 5 Further reading 6 External links Circumstances of the case Dollree Mapp was an employee in the illegal gambling rackets dominated by Cleveland rackets kingpin Shon Birns. On May 23, 1957, police officers in Cleveland, Ohio, received an anonymous tip by phone that Virgil Ogletree, a numbers operator who was wanted for questioning in the bombing of rival numbers racketeer and future boxing promoter Don King 's home three days earlier, might be found at Mapp 's house, as well as illegal betting slips and equipment employed in the `` California Gold '' numbers operation set up by Mapp 's boyfriend Edward Keeling. Three officers went to the home and asked for permission to enter, but Mapp, after consulting her lawyer by telephone, refused to admit them without a search warrant. Two officers left, and one remained, watching the house from across the street. Three hours later, four cars full of police arrived and knocked on the door. When she did n't answer, they forced the door. Mapp asked to see the alleged warrant and was shown a piece of paper which she snatched away from an officer, putting it inside her dress. The officers struggled with Mapp and recovered the piece of paper which was not seen by her or her lawyers again, and was not introduced as evidence in any of the ensuing court proceedings. When asked about the warrant during oral argument at the Supreme Court, the Cleveland prosecutor arguing the case cautiously deflected the question, which the court did not press. As the search of Mapp 's second - floor, 2 - bedroom apartment began, police handcuffed her for being belligerent. The police searched the house thoroughly, and discovered Ogletree, who was subsequently cleared on the bombing charge, hiding in the apartment of the downstairs tenant, Minerva Tate. In the search of Mapp 's apartment and in a footlocker in the basement of the house police found a quantity of `` California Gold '' betting slips and paraphernalia. They also found a pistol and a small quantity of pornographic books and pictures which Mapp stated a previous tenant named Morris Jones had left behind. Mapp was arrested, charged, and cleared on a misdemeanor charge of possessing numbers paraphernalia ; but several months later, after she refused to testify against Shon Birns, Edward Keeling and their associates at their trial that October for the attempted shakedown of Don King, she was prosecuted for possession of the books, found guilty at a 1958 trial 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 '', and sentenced to one to seven years in prison. Mapp then appealed her case to the Supreme Court, on the grounds that the police had no probable cause to suspect her of having the books. She stated that the 4th Amendment should be incorporated to the state and local level. She argued that the police could n't use the books as evidence in trial because they were found without a warrant and therefore illegally recovered. Mapp is the first to call upon this law. Decision The U.S. Supreme Court voted 6 - 3 in favor of Mapp. The Court overturned the conviction, and five justices found that the States were bound to exclude evidence seized in violation of the 4th Amendment. This ruling officially applied the exclusionary rule to the states. See also United States Bill of Rights Fruit of the poisonous tree Exclusionary rule References Jump up ^ Zotti, Priscilla. Injustice for All ( Peter Lang, 2005 ). Jump up ^ Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 ( U.S. 1961 ). Jump up ^ Duignan, Brian ( 2012 - 05 - 25 ). `` Mapp v. Ohio ''. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc. Retrieved March 19, 2014. Jump up ^ https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/367/643#writing - Jump up ^ Williams, Bob. `` Dolly Mapp Sheds Glamour Gal Role '', Cleveland Call and Post, Nov. 23, 1957, p. 1. Jump up ^ http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar19.html Further reading Long, Carolyn ( 2006 ). Mapp v. Ohio : Guarding Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures. University Press of Kansas. ISBN 0 - 7006 - 1441 - 9. Stewart, Potter ( 1983 ). `` The Road to Mapp v. Ohio and beyond : The Origins, Development and Future of the Exclusionary Rule in Search - and - Seizure Cases ''. Columbia Law Review. 83 ( 6 ) : 1365 -- 1404. JSTOR 1122492. doi : 10.2307 / 1122492. Zotti, Priscilla H. Machado ( 2005 ). Injustice for All : Mapp vs. Ohio and the Fourth Amendment. New York : Peter Lang. ISBN 0 - 8204 - 7267 - 0. External links Wikisource has original text related to this article : Mapp v. Ohio Archival source documents relating to the Mapp case at Cleveland Memory Dollree Mapp, Who Defied Police Search in Landmark Case, Is Dead - New York Times `` Supreme Court Landmark Case Mapp v. Ohio '' from C - SPAN 's Landmark Cases : 12 Historic Supreme Court Decisions United States 4th Amendment case law Scope of the Fourth Amendment What constitutes a search ? Ex parte Jackson ( 1878 ) Boyd v. United States ( 1886 ) Gouled v. United States ( 1921 ) Burdeau v. McDowell ( 1921 ) Hester v. United States ( 1924 ) United States v. Lee ( 1927 ) Olmstead v. United States ( 1928 ) Goldman v. United States ( 1942 ) On Lee v. United States ( 1952 ) Abel v. United States ( 1960 ) Silverman v. United States ( 1961 ) Lewis v. United States ( 1966 ) Hoffa v. United States ( 1966 ) Katz v. United States ( 1967 ) Terry v. Ohio ( 1968 ) United States v. White ( 1971 ) California Bankers Association v. Schultz ( 1974 ) Smith v. Maryland ( 1979 ) Walter v. United States ( 1980 ) United States v. Knotts ( 1983 ) United States v. Place ( 1983 ) United States v. Jacobsen ( 1984 ) Oliver v. United States ( 1984 ) United States v. Karo ( 1984 ) California v. Ciraolo ( 1986 ) Dow Chemical Co. v. United States ( 1986 ) United States v. Dunn ( 1987 ) California v. Greenwood ( 1988 ) Florida v. Riley ( 1989 ) Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Ass'n ( 1989 ) United States v. Verdugo - Urquidez ( 1990 ) United States v. Bond ( 2000 ) Kyllo v. United States ( 2001 ) Illinois v. Caballes ( 2005 ) United States v. Jones ( 2012 ) Florida v. Jardines ( 2013 ) Klayman v. Obama ( 2013 ) ACLU v. Clapper ( 2013 ) What constitutes a seizure ? Counselman v. Hitchcock ( 1892 ) Hale v. Henkel ( 1906 ) Terry v. Ohio ( 1968 ) United States v. Mendenhall ( 1980 ) Florida v. Royer ( 1983 ) United States v. Jacobsen ( 1984 ) INS v. Delgado ( 1984 ) Michigan v. Chesternut ( 1988 ) Brower v. County of Inyo ( 1989 ) California v. Hodari D. ( 1991 ) Florida v. Bostick ( 1991 ) Soldal v. Cook County ( 1992 ) United States v. Drayton ( 2002 ) Brendlin v. California ( 2007 ) Probable Cause Dumbra v. United States ( 1925 ) Brinegar v. United States ( 1949 ) Draper v. United States ( 1959 ) Aguilar v. Texas ( 1964 ) Spinelli v. United States ( 1969 ) Hill v. California ( 1971 ) Illinois v. Gates ( 1983 ) Ornelas v. United States ( 1996 ) Whren v. United States ( 1996 ) Maryland v. Pringle ( 2003 ) Florida v. Harris ( 2013 ) Reasonable suspicion : Investigative detentions and frisks Terry v. Ohio ( 1968 ) Sibron v. New York ( 1968 ) Adams v. Williams ( 1972 ) United States v. Brignoni - Ponce ( 1975 ) Delaware v. Prouse ( 1979 ) Michigan v. DeFillippo ( 1979 ) Brown v. Texas ( 1979 ) Ybarra v. Illinois ( 1979 ) United States v. Cortez ( 1981 ) United States v. Place ( 1983 ) Michigan v. Long ( 1983 ) United States v. Hensley ( 1985 ) United States v. Sokolow ( 1989 ) Alabama v. White ( 1990 ) Minnesota v. Dickerson ( 1996 ) Illinois v. Wardlow ( 2000 ) Florida v. J.L. ( 2000 ) United States v. Arvizu ( 2002 ) Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada ( 2004 ) Arizona v. Johnson ( 2009 ) Prado Navarette v. California ( 2014 ) Heien v. North Carolina ( 2014 ) Warrant Requirement Steele v. United States ( 1925 ) Johnson v. United States ( 1948 ) Franks v. Delaware ( 1978 ) Ybarra v. Illinois ( 1979 ) Maryland v. Garrison ( 1987 ) Groh v. Ramirez ( 2004 ) United States v. Grubbs ( 2006 ) Los Angeles County v. Rettelle ( 2006 ) Mere evidence rule Boyd v. United States ( 1886 ) Hale v. Henkel ( 1906 ) Gouled v. United States ( 1921 ) Marron v. United States ( 1927 ) Warden v. Hayden ( 1967 ) Neutral and detached magistrate Coolidge v. New Hampshire ( 1971 ) Shadwick v. City of Tampa ( 1972 ) Connally v. Georgia ( 1977 ) Warrants directed at third parties Zurcher v. Stanford Daily ( 1978 ) Knock - and - announce Wilson v. Arkansas ( 1995 ) Richards v. Wisconsin ( 1997 ) United States v. Ramirez ( 1998 ) United States v. Banks ( 2003 ) Presence of media Wilson v. Layne ( 1999 ) Exceptions to Warrant Requirement Exigent circumstances Warden v. Hayden ( 1967 ) United States v. Chadwick ( 1977 ) Michigan v. Tyler ( 1978 ) Payton v. New York ( 1980 ) Welsh v. Wisconsin ( 1986 ) Brigham City v. Stuart ( 2006 ) Kentucky v. King ( 2011 ) Consent searches Amos v. United States ( 1921 ) Bumper v. North Carolina ( 1968 ) Schneckloth v. Bustamonte ( 1973 ) United States v. Matlock ( 1974 ) Illinois v. Rodriguez ( 1990 ) Georgia v. Randolph ( 2006 ) Fernandez v. California ( 2014 ) Plain view Coolidge v. New Hampshire ( 1971 ) Arizona v. Hicks ( 1987 ) Horton v. California ( 1990 ) Minnesota v. Dickerson ( 1993 ) Vehicle searches Carroll v. United States ( 1925 ) Chambers v. Maroney ( 1970 ) Cardwell v. Lewis ( 1974 ) Arkansas v. Sanders ( 1979 ) United States v. Ross ( 1982 ) California v. Carney ( 1985 ) Florida v. Jimeno ( 1991 ) California v. Acevedo ( 1991 ) Wyoming v. Houghton ( 1999 ) Florida v. White ( 1999 ) Searches incident to arrest Agnello v. United States ( 1925 ) Harris v. United States ( 1947 ) Trupiano v. United States ( 1948 ) United States v. Rabinowitz ( 1950 ) Chimel v. California ( 1969 ) United States v. Robinson ( 1973 ) United States v. Chadwick ( 1977 ) New York v. Belton ( 1981 ) Knowles v. Iowa ( 1998 ) Thornton v. United States ( 2004 ) Arizona v. Gant ( 2009 ) Riley v. California ( 2014 ) Breathalyzers, blood samples, DNA Schmerber v. California ( 1966 ) Cupp v. Murphy ( 1973 ) Missouri v. McNeely ( 2013 ) Maryland v. King ( 2013 ) Birchfield v. North Dakota ( 2016 ) Protective sweeps Maryland v. Buie ( 1990 ) Inventory searches South Dakota v. Opperman ( 1976 ) Illinois v. Lafayette ( 1983 ) Border searches Almeida - Sanchez v. United States ( 1973 ) United States v. Ortiz ( 1975 ) United States v. Martinez - Fuerte ( 1976 ) United States v. Ramsey ( 1977 ) United States v. Montoya De Hernandez ( 1985 ) United States v. Flores - Montano ( 2004 ) `` Special needs '' searches : Checkpoints Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz ( 1990 ) City of Indianapolis v. Edmond ( 2000 ) Illinois v. Lidster ( 2004 ) `` Special needs '' searches : Students, employees, and patients New Jersey v. T.L.O. ( 1985 ) O'Connor v. Ortega ( 1987 ) Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Ass'n ( 1989 ) National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab ( 1989 ) Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton ( 1995 ) Chandler v. Miller ( 1997 ) Ferguson v. City of Charleston ( 2001 ) Board of Education v. Earls ( 2002 ) Safford Unified School District v. Redding ( 2009 ) City of Ontario v. Quon ( 2010 ) `` Special needs '' searches : Property of probationers and parolees Griffin v. Wisconsin ( 1987 ) United States v. Knights ( 2001 ) Samson v. California ( 2006 ) Administrative inspections Frank v. Maryland ( 1959 ) Camara v. Municipal Court ( 1967 ) See v. City of Seattle ( 1967 ) Marshall v. Barlow 's, Inc. ( 1978 ) Donovan v. Dewey ( 1980 ) New York v. Burger ( 1983 ) Michigan v. Clifford ( 1984 ) City of Los Angeles v. Patel ( 2015 ) Searches in jails and prisons Bell v. Wolfish ( 1979 ) Hudson v. Palmer ( 1984 ) Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders ( 2012 ) Searches at sea United States v. Villamonte - Marquez ( 1983 ) Warrantless arrests Gerstein v. Pugh ( 1975 ) United States v. Watson ( 1976 ) Payton v. New York ( 1980 ) Welsh v. Wisconsin ( 1983 ) Minnesota v. Olson ( 1990 ) County of Riverside v. McLaughlin ( 1991 ) Atwater v. City of Lago Vista ( 2001 ) Devenpeck v. Alford ( 2004 ) Virginia v. Moore ( 2008 ) Seizures Distinguishing stops and arrests Dunaway v. New York ( 1979 ) Florida v. Royer ( 1983 ) United States v. Place ( 1983 ) United States v. Sharpe ( 1985 ) Seizure of premises awaiting warrant Illinois v. McArthur ( 2001 ) Detention incident to search Michigan v. Summers ( 1981 ) Muehler v. Mena ( 2005 ) Bailey v. United States ( 2013 ) Detention during vehicle stop Pennsylvania v. Mimms ( 1977 ) Maryland v. Wilson ( 1997 ) Rodriguez v. United States ( 2015 ) Excessive force Tennessee v. Garner ( 1985 ) Graham v. Connor ( 1989 ) Scott v. Harris ( 2007 ) Plumhoff v. Rickard ( 2014 ) Remedies Exclusionary rule Origins Adams v. New York ( 1904 ) Weeks v. United States ( 1914 ) Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States ( 1920 ) Standing Jones v. United States ( 1960 ) Rakas v. Illinois ( 1978 ) Minnesota v. Olson ( 1990 ) Minnesota v. Carter ( 1998 ) Impeachment exception Agnello v. United States ( 1925 ) Walder v. United States ( 1954 ) United States v. Havens ( 1980 ) James v. Illinois ( 1990 ) Good - faith exception United States v. Leon ( 1984 ) Massachusetts v. Sheppard ( 1984 ) Illinois v. Krull ( 1987 ) Herring v. United States ( 2009 ) Davis v. United States ( 2011 ) Independent source Segura v. United States ( 1984 ) Murray v. United States ( 1988 ) Inevitable discovery Nix v. Williams ( 1984 ) Attenuation Wong Sun v. United States ( 1963 ) Utah v. Strieff ( 2016 ) No - knock searches Hudson v. Michigan ( 2006 ) Use outside criminal trials Kaufman v. United States ( 1969 ) United States v. Calandra ( 1974 ) Stone v. Powell ( 1976 ) INS v. Lopez - Mendoza ( 1984 ) Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. Scott ( 1998 ) Civil suit Federal Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents ( 1971 ) Anderson v. Creighton ( 1987 ) State 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Monroe v. Pape ( 1961 ) Malley v. Briggs ( 1986 ) Incorporation against States Unreasonable search and seizure Wolf v. Colorado ( 1949 ) Rochin v. California ( 1952 ) Irvine v. California ( 1954 ) Elkins v. United States ( 1960 ) Mapp v. Ohio ( 1961 ) Warrant requirements Ker v. California ( 1963 ) Aguilar v. Texas ( 1964 ) Retrieved from `` https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mapp_v._Ohio&oldid=797692338 '' Categories : United States Supreme Court decisions that overrule a prior Supreme Court decision Cuyahoga County, Ohio United States Supreme Court cases United States Fourth Amendment case law 20th century American trials 1961 in United States case law Incorporation case law American Civil Liberties Union litigation United States Supreme Court cases of the Warren Court Cleveland Division of Police Talk Contents About Wikipedia Simple English Edit links This page was last edited on 28 August 2017, at 17 : 08. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution - ShareAlike License ; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia ® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. About Wikipedia

Question: what was the issue in mapp v ohio
Answer: evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures," may not be used in state law criminal prosecutions in state courts