Title: Dollree Mapp
Content:  Dollree Mapp (October 30, 1923 – October 31, 2014) was the appellant in the Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio (1961). She argued that her right to privacy in her home, the Fourth Amendment, was violated by police officers who entered her house with what she thought to be a fake search warrant. Mapp also argued that the Exclusionary Rule was violated due to the collection of the evidence that was found after the police had entered her house without a convincing search warrant according to Mapp's experience. In the Supreme Court case, Mapp v. Ohio, the decision was made in favor of Mapp, in a 6-3 ruling. As a result of the ruling in Mapp v. Ohio, Mapp's conviction was voided. A few years after Mapp v. Ohio was ruled upon, Mapp was convicted again, but this time for the possession of narcotics. After her prison sentence had ended, she began working "for a non-profit that provided legal assistance to inmates."
Title: Mapp v. Ohio
Content:  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 was backed by Don King. Mapp was convicted even though prosecutors were unable to produce a valid search warrant. She appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio, which affirmed her conviction because even though the search warrant's validity was doubtful and the police's search of her home was illegal, the police officers had not used brutal force against her, and so under the Supreme Court's precedents in Wolf and Rochin the exclusionary rule did not have to apply. Mapp then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear her case.
Title: Mapp v. Ohio
Content:  On June 19, 1961, the Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision in favor of Mapp that overturned her conviction and held that the exclusionary rule applies to American states as well as the federal government.
Title: Dollree Mapp
Content:  took the paper from Mapp. The officer found evidence of pornography in Mapp's house. As a result, Mapp was "charged under an Ohio law that made possession of obscene material a felony." Mapp was sentenced with 7 years in prison. While on bond, however, she appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, which rejected her case. She then appealed to the U.S Supreme Court "on the basis of freedom of expression" and they accepted her case. The Supreme Court Justices all "drew laughs from the courtroom gallery while leaving no doubt how absurd they found Ohio’s obscenity statute." Initially, there was unanimous agreement that the Ohio obscenity law was not in line with the 
Title: Mapp v. Ohio
Content:  Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the exclusionary rule, which prevents prosecutors from using evidence in court that was obtained by violating the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, applies not only to the federal government but also to the states. 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 is applicable only to actions of the federal government into the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause which is applicable to actions of the states.
Title: Mapp v. Ohio
Content:  Three justices dissented from the Court's decision and joined an opinion written by Justice John Marshall Harlan II. Harlan wrote that the Court should not have reached the Fourth Amendment issues in the case because Mapp's conviction and the subsequent arguments at her appeals had focused on the legality of Ohio's anti-pornography laws, and not on the police officers' warrantless search of her home. Harlan wrote that the Court's decision in Wolf should be upheld per the principle of stare decisis, and that it did not require the entirety of the Fourth Amendment to be enforced against the states, but rather only the "principle of privacy which is at the core of the Fourth Amendment."
Title: Supreme Court of Ohio
Content:  In DeRolph v. State (1997) the Supreme Court of Ohio found that Ohio's method of funding its schools was unconstitutional. The case originated in the Perry County Schools. In Mapp v. Ohio (1961), the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Supreme Court of Ohio, and found that evidence seized unlawfully without a search warrant can not be used in criminal prosecutions.
Title: Mapp v. Ohio
Content:  house thoroughly and discovered Ogletree, who was subsequently cleared on the bombing charge, hiding in the apartment of the downstairs tenant. In the search of Mapp's apartment and in a footlocker in the basement of the house, the police found betting slips. They also found a pistol and several pornographic books and pictures, which Mapp said a previous tenant had left behind. The police arrested Mapp and charged her with a misdemeanor count of possessing numbers-game paraphernalia, but she was acquitted. Several months later, after Mapp refused to testify against Birns and his associates at their trial for the attempted shakedown of King, she was prosecuted for possession of the pornographic books. Mapp was found guilty at trial of "knowingly having had in 
Title: Mapp v. Ohio
Content:  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, more police officers arrived and knocked on the door. When Mapp did not answer, they forced the door open. Mapp asked to see their search 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. As the search of Mapp's second-floor, two-bedroom apartment began, police handcuffed her for being belligerent. The police searched 
Title: Dollree Mapp
Content:  case it was not, so the evidence was not included in the trial. In the majority opinion, the Supreme Court "recognized that the purpose of the exclusionary rule "is to deter - to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only effectively available way - by removing the incentive to disregard it." However, the Court makes an effort to say that it is not the exclusionary rule which sets the appellant free, "it is the law that sets him free." In Mapp v. Ohio, when Mapp's conviction was overturned it was due to the fact that the law "gives to the individual no more than that which the Constitution guarantees him." Mapp v. Ohio, Gideon v. Wainwright, and Miranda v. Arizona, were all major cases that had large affects on policing and search warrant requirements thereafter.

Question: who was involved in the mapp vs ohio case?
Answer: Dollree Mapp.