Fourth Amendment: The Case Of Mapp V. Ohio

As noted in Document 1, the 14th Amendment explicitly affirmed: “…All persons born or naturalized in the United State, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…” The 14th Amendment ------------ (lead into the 15th amendment) 15th Amendment: The Fifteenth Amendment granted all male citizens, regardless of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude” the right to vote.

Peter Crumans 4th amendments were not violated when he was compelled to show his Facebook page. School officials were trying to protect the wellbeing of their students, therefore trying to get to the bottom of what this tip was about and needed to search the suspected student who after a little persistence began to cooperate. Principal Lyons received an anonymous tip that Peter Curman had posted that he would be conducting a few sales of illegal drugs on school property giving him reasonable suspicion to search the student. In the case of New Jersey vs. T.L.O school officials were able to search a student due to reasonable suspicion for violations on school property, therefore giving principal Lyons justification because he not only received

This case was extremely important and made is so children of all races could attend the same schools. This decision affected the Criminal Justice system as well as society as a whole and allows people to live they way they do

Question 2 In the case of Mapp v. Ohio, Dollree Mapp was at the center of an investigation regarding a search for a potential bombing suspect. The bombing suspect was thought to be residing in Dollree Mapp’s residence. The police originally approached Mapp’s residence and requested permission to search the residence for the bombing suspect, equipment, and gambling equipment. Mapp consulted her attorney, and declined to allow the officers to enter the residence without a search warrant.

The 4th amendment states that the right to privacy should not by violated by conducting unreasonable searches and seizures. In the hudson v. Palmer case, an inmate named Russel Palmer sued Ted Hudson who was an officer at the Virginia prison. Palmer stated that the officer had conducted a shakedown of his locker and cell in the attempt to find hidden contraband. After the search turned out to be unsuccessful, Officer Hudson, then charged Palmer for destroying state property, as they found a ripped pillow case in his cell. Ted Hudson won the case, as the court stated that the right to privacy does not apply within a prison cell.

Mapp v. Ohio Throughout the last 70 years, there have been many cases that the U.S. Supreme Court has decided upon leading to many advancements in the U.S. Constitution. Many of the cases have created laws that we still use today. In the case I chose, Dollree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials, four little pamphlets, a couple of photos, and a little pencil doodle, after an illegal police search of her home for a suspected bomber. No suspect was found, but she was arrested.

Mapp vs. Ohio On June 19, 1961, the Mapp v. Ohio case was taken to the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington D.C. The situation addressed in court was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment states that people have the right to be secure in their houses, and it forbids unreasonable searches and seizures.

On July 9th, 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in order to secure the previously infringed on rights of formerly enslaved African Americans. This racially charged amendment was intended to guarantee the protection for these former slaves, yet this amendment was distorted in order to justify and deny rights for women, gay couples, men, and various other minority groups. Through examining specific cases such as, Muller v. Oregon and Bradwell v. Illinois, it becomes evident that this amendment has been used both positively and negatively to effect women’s rights and protection under the law. Especially in regarding the 19th century, the Fourteenth Amendment was used to rationalize sexist actions by employers, states, and other officials.

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects any person within their jurisdiction of their due process and equal protection. The Equal Protection Clause under the 14th Amendment requires the states to apply their laws equally to any person within their jurisdiction. The equal protection clause aims to provide equal application of the law. It is also crucial to the protection of civil rights. There should be no discrimination in its application.

This amendment granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which included former slaves recently freed by the Thirteenth Amendment. In addition to granting citizenship, it forbids states from denying anyone "life, liberty or property, without due process of law" or to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” no matter who they were. The 14th Amendment expanded the protection of civil rights tremendously to all Americans no matter color or race and is cited in more litigations than any other amendment of the United States today. On June 22, 1866, precisely fourteen days after the senate passed the Fourteenth Amendment, President Andrew Johnson issued a message to Congress announcing that the Fourteenth Amendment had been sent to the states for ratification. Johnson voiced his negative opinion of the amendment by stating that his actions should "be considered as purely ministerial, and in no sense whatever committing the Executive to an approval or a recommendation of the amendment to the State legislatures or to the

The explicit meaning of the 14th Amendment is to give Americans equality. In the 14th Amendment it states,” All persons born or naturalized in the United States.” “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States .” No state can make or support any laws that take away the rights of U.S. citizens. To understand the intent and purpose of the 14th Amendment, one must analyze the language

The 14th amendment was written after the Civil War to protect Naturalized citizens of their rights and equal protection of the law. The amendment resolves the legal status of former slaves, even though there was still a lot of confusion over newly freed slaves African Americans were still restricted in the southern states. Black children weren’t allowed to attend schools with white children because of the segregation laws but after a lawsuit was filed 1954 Brown v. board of education, the separate but equal is unequal, so the segregation laws were abolished in 1964 by the Civil Rights Act. The 14th amendment gave way too many legal rights to the Americans people to proof to the Government and State that all no matter the race have rights to

The Verdict discussed how both cases were attempting to suppress evidence from their cell phones which now contain much more information than they once did. Cases like this continue to shape our rights. The fourth amendment is here to protect ourselves from being incriminated. In modern day the fourth amendment is in question due to new technology.

The Reconstruction was important to American history because it gave all different types of people their rights. The fourteenth amendment, The Dawes act and The Homestead Act all have things in common. All of these acts involve something to do with race and or forcing people out of their homes or land. The fourteenth Amendment gave men of color “equal” rights to white men.

The 14th amendment is split into five sections. Section one is the most important of them all and it states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (The Constitution 2014). However it was put to test in the south early on.