Facts On 23 May 1957, working an unidentified tip that Mapp was keeping a most wanted bombing criminal; the Cleveland police department went to Dollere Mapp’s house to arrest her. After consulting her attorney, Mapp refused grant them entrance to her house because they lacked a search warrant as required by the law. The officers forced in, and upon insisting to the officers to show her a search warrant, they showed her some piece of paper that in real was not a search warrant. They cuffed her, went ahead and searched her house, where instead of getting the fugitive, they got some paper pieces in her basement with pornographic scribbling. The officers went ahead and arrested her on accusations that she had dishonored the Ohio law that banned one from being in possession of obscene materials. The court of common pleas of Cuyahoga country convicted her using the material police officers had collected as evidence, although the police had no search warrant as the law dictates. Although she tried to appeal, the court rejected her appeal hence, holding the sentence something that impelled her to file an appeal in the Supreme Court. In addition, although her attorney disqualified the conviction on grounds that, the officers had obtained the evidence against her consent, the court effected the conviction on argument that the officers never took the materials forcefully from Mapp’s house; hence, they were part of the evidence (U.S. Supreme Court: Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), 2010, p.1). Issue Considering the circumstances under which the officers conducted the search, should the Ohio law that prohibits individuals from having obscene materials convict an individual using evidence collect without a search warrant? Holdings Yes, police officers found obscene materials in Mapp’s trunk; however, following the exclusionary rule the prosecution had no right of using such material as evidence for convicting somebody as was in Mapp’s case. This reversed the Wolf verdict following the majority opinion. This is because referring to two past cases that were of the same kind Boyd’s and Weeks’ the prosecution had no firm basis of using the evidence the officers had collected from Mapp’s house primarily, because the officers had used a wrong approach of obtaining them. Rationale The court appeal reversed the court’s ruling on condition that the exclusionary law also was applicable to states. That is, it was not legal and appropriate for courts to use evidence officers had collected using illegal means. The court of appeal based its judgment using the link between the fourteenth and forth amendment. Whereby Justice Clark argued that owing to the nature of this case, the court had to use the endorsement of the exclusion law because both the fourteenth and the forth amendment had clear provisions as concerns individual privacy rights. In passing the majority opinion, Justice Clark shielded the courts decision by stating that; the argument that provisions of this law gives guilty criminals a chance of evading justice because arresting officers commit mistakes contradicted provisions in the same law considering the fact that, failure to observe law has many negative impacts on government’s justice system. Concurring Opinion Justice Black concurred with the courts opinion, whereby he expressed doubt on the application of the fourth amendmen