Mapp Vs Ohio Case Study

Significance: The Supreme Court here expresses that governmental conduct like drug dog sniffing that can reveal whether a substance is contraband, yet no other private fact, does not compromise any privacy interest, and therefore is not a search subject to the Fourth Amendment. Terry v. Ohio permits only brief investigative stops and extremely limited searches based on reasonable suspicion including seizures of property independent of the seizure of the

Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health What is the value of a life? Do family members always have the patients’ best interest in mind when making medical decisions? Who should ultimately make the decision of life or death for patients that will never leave a permanent vegetative state? Lester and Joyce Cruzan faced an issue no parent ever wants to face after their daughter, Nancy was in a horrific car accident that left her in a persistent vegetative state.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-3 vote in favor of Mapp. The Supreme Court stated that evidence obtained from an unreasonable or illegal search and seizure couldn’t be used against the accused in state court. Before the ruling, federal courts were required to suppress evidence gathered illegally. The decision extended the rule — known as the exclusionary rule — to state courts. The change has put continuing pressure on police departments to conduct investigations lawfully and brought increased scrutiny when their actions appear improper.

A recent federal lawsuit has been filed by the American Civil Liberties Union’s (ACLU) challenging the constitutionality of three provisions of the Setonia’s Abortion Laws. The three provisions ACLU are challenging are as follows (McCauliff): • Law which prevents state health officials from renewing or issuing licenses to abortion clinics located with 2000 feet of an elementary school (McCauliff). • Law which requires physicians performing abortions to complete 10 hours annually of continuing medical education on abortion procedures (McCauliff). • Law which requires abortion providers to give every patient a copy of her medical records, regardless of whether the patient requests such records (McCauliff).

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.

Washington chose to enforce the ban as it is rationally related to a state interest, therefore related to the exercise of its police powers. In my opinion, Washington 's ban on physician assisted-suicide did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment 's Due Process Clause. Analyzing the guarantees of the Due Process Clause, the Court focused on two main aspects: the protection of our nation 's objective fundamental, historically rooted, rights and liberties; and the cautious definition of what constitutes a due process liberty interest. The Court held that the right to assisted suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause since its practice has been, and continues to be, offensive to our national traditions and practices.

In the Baxter v. Montana case, the Plaintiffs ' statement was that the right to assisted death is based on three of the explicit rights in the Montana Constitution; equal protection, personal dignity, and individual privacy. The right to privacy and equal protection are also in the U.S. Constitution, therefore, Mr. Baxter should be able to do as he pleases in the privacy of his own home. The state denying Baxter these natural rights, brings up more issues besides the right to die. More importantly, it was also clear that throughout the case Mr. Baxter was diagnosed with lymphocytic leukemia and was terminally ill. The District Court of the First Judicial District agreed and held that a competent, terminally ill patient has a right to die with dignity and appealed the case.

Due to cases such as Terry v Ohio and Mapp v Ohio, when police found criminating evidence through an illegal search or obtained proof of a crime through an illegal entry of the home, according to the Supreme Court, this evidence cannot be brought to trial. The Terry v Ohio case decided 8-1 on the grounds of the officer having “a hunch” that Terry had a weapon, this was ruled unconstitutional. Mapp v Ohio was decided 6-3 with the premise “[The Supreme Court] declared that "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by [the Fourth Amendment], inadmissible in a state court."” (Oyez-Mapp). The punishment of police officers and law enforcement has ranged from lawsuits by the victim, consent decrees, citizen review boards, or, rarely, prosecuting the officer (England).

The conclusion was determined by the unlawfully seized evidence that was received without a warrant. Without a warrant, the information obtained could not be used in prosecutions of criminals in state courts. The five justices that voted in Mapp’s favor stated that the evidence seized was in violation of the fourth Amendment. A justice apart of the case, Justice Tom Clark said, “We hold that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution [is] inadmissible in state court… Were it otherwise… the assurance against unreasonable…searches and seizures would be [meaningless].” Basically, Clark says that if you obtain evidence in a search that is not permitted and it is illegal, it is pointless because it cannot be used against a person in the court room to convict them because it violates the fourth

Roe vs. Wade is the highly publicized Supreme Court ruling that overturned a Texas interpretation of abortion law and made abortion legal in the United States. The Roe v. Wade decision held that a woman, with her doctor, has the right to choose abortion in earlier months of pregnancy without legal restriction, and with restrictions in later months, based on the right to privacy. As a result, all state laws that limited women 's access to abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy were invalidated by this particular case. State laws limiting such access during the second trimester were upheld only when the restrictions were for the purpose of protecting the health of the pregnant woman. Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the greater United States, which was not legal at all in many states and was limited by law in others.

The founders of the Constitution knew that it is important to protect citizens from violation of their privacy, especially to the respect of invasion of their homes. Therefore the fourth amendment came into existence to ensure that individuals rights will not be infringed. The fourth amendment and the exclusionary rule has protected individual rights against the police and other government agencies from, unreasonable search and seizures. Furthermore, the exclusionary rule has deterred police misconduct and as well as intended to discourage law enforcement from conducting illegal searches by stating that any evidence found during an illegal search will be dismissed and cannot be used against the defendant in a court of law. The supreme court case, Fremont weeks vs. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that since the evidence gathered during weeks case were through illegal means the court dismissed the case.

The Right to Abortion On January 22, 1973, in a 7-2 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down it’s landmark decision in the case of Roe v. Wade, which recognized that the constitutional right to privacy extends to a woman’s right to make her own personal medical decisions — including the decision to have an abortion without interference from politicians (Planned Parenthood). There are many moments in history when Roe v. Wade has been so close to being overturned, yet it is still in place. Abortion should stay legal, or not overturned, for the health of women everywhere. First, this important case took place at the time of abortion being illegal in most states, including Texas, where Roe v. Wade began.

The exclusionary rule can make evidence inadmissible in the court of law if that evidence was illegally obtained by a police officer. This protects an individual from unlawful searches and serves as an effective deterrent for police misconduct. One could argue that a mistake on the officer’s behalf should not result in the release of a criminal. This assertion would be reasonable if these fourth amendment violations committed by police officers were honest mistakes. Unfortunately, some illegal evidence is found because of deliberate misconduct by the police.

The case of Florida versus Jardines was heard before the Supreme Court on October 31, 2012 and a decision was made on March 26, 2013. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jardines. This case challenged the fundamental core of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure. The ruling of this case has impacted how law officials handle searches and the use of drug dogs. This case also challenged the boundary line of where personal property starts.

Ohio (1961), the Supreme Court trusted that the Constitution charged the exclusionary rule as a remaking of a Fourth Amendment infringement. They saw the truths of the sample, the exclusionary rule which was the assurance of somebody 's protection furthermore required by the Due Process which portrayed the Fourteenth Amendment. The rule stated three purposes by the Mapp Court, the right given by the constitution and stated that when police admitted that they were at fault, judges then extended the violations in court. This would stop misconduct for negligence since the case of Mapp the Supreme Court has seized out many exceptions to the exclusionary rule. I would agree with exclusionary rule, searches are easy to get permission from most defendants.