This entire video largely concerns itself with one situation. A woman, Mrs. Mapp, has her home illegally broken into. Law enforcers attempt to enter Mrs. Mapp's house to search it, in which she declines them because they do not have a search warrant. The police come back, shove a piece of paper into her face (which is a fake warrant) and they search her home. This offense breaks the fourth amendment. On top of that, the officers do not find anything that they were intentionally looking for. Instead, they found some illegal pornography in her room. The officers arrested her for this finding and her "resisting arrest" (she didn't let them in without a warrant) The fourteenth amendment forced law enforcement to follow the bill of rights and due process, no matter if the court is with state or federal levels. Because the evidence found against Mrs. Mapp was under an illegal search warrant, the evidence is actually considered illegally obtained, and therefore invalid and void. The law cannot prosecute against Mrs. Mapp because nothing found against her was legally obtained, and she got off free. Officers must have a legal search warrant to search and seize any residence. There are some loopholes to this rule. The Plain View Clause allows officers to search and seize when things are in plain sight. For example, if an officer sees you stab somebody in the back through your window, that officer has full legal authority to enter your home and make the arrest, and all evidence is legal. Same goes to if they see drugs in your car, they then can legally search your car. Also, if an officer or k9 unit smells drugs or other illegal substances, they are legally allowed to perform a search and seizer, even without getting a warrant first. The phrase "Rotten Fruit of The Rotten Tree" is used in the video a lot, as well. This phrase is used to state that all intel found using illegally obtained evidence is illegal and void. If an officer illegally enters your home and obtains a map of bodies you have buried, all evidence and information obtained from that evidence is illegal. Even if the officers find those bodies, they found them because the evidence, and the evidence was void under law. However, if by chance the officers have reason to believe the bodies would have been found anyways, even without the map, then the case can still be used and the information is not considered void. For example, if there was already a mass search party in the areas where the body was found, it could be said that the evidence only helped find the information faster, but it would have been found either way. In this case, the information could still be used. - AJC002 Ky002 JAG002 Ciaccio002 Giminy002
This video explains what happened between Doralene Mapp and how she believed the 4th amendment had everything to do with her case. In 1975 police investigated a bomb suspect and linked it back to Mapp through Don Kings number. They didn't think she was the suspect but they thought the suspect would be to her house. The police come knocking and she wouldn't let them in because she knew her rights and she knew they would need a warrant if they wanted to get in. Later on the police come knocking down her door, flashing a "warrant" in her face and starts searching for the suspect they knew had to be in there. But instead of finding what they were looking for they find a suitcase under her bed full of pornography and with that evidence they would use that against her in court. After the conviction she talks about the 4th amendment and how it should have been applied to her in the situation. They had no warrant so they we not free to come in and search her house. But since they found some valuable things like the pornography they actually had a case outside of that case. The exclusionary rule in all of this was used around the "plain view" of her findings. I don't think her case was fair from the begin with even though she got free, especially if they didn't have a search warrant in the first place and then lied about it. And what makes this unfair is that the suitcase full of evidence was not in plain view, they actually dug around in a house they had no permission of and found important things. I feel like the police who dealt with that should be the ones facing consequences for not following rules that they have full knowledge of. Kt002
Your right her case wasn't fair at the time but now thanks to that case we have fixed things. During this era police thought they were the law and they were the top dog and they could never get in trouble that's why all these things happened during this era. If you think about it though and if this case didn't happen or it got turned around completely who knows what the amendment would be like today and who knows if we would even have exclusionary rules. I find this case as a blessing in disguise for all the things it has done since this case. JE002
The case of Mapp has forever shaped the criminal justice system. It has been really helpful in protecting innocent people, criminals, officers, and the public. With this bad case, we have many new terms and regulations set to ensure policing is being done correctly and all evidence is legal. This case has turned out much better results than expected. OASIS_002
It wasn't fair for her to be prosecuted for them finding the pornography in the chest when they didn't even have the right to search her house. It as shaped the criminal justice system and made it what it is today, even though it isn't perfect it is still better than what it was back in the earlier days. AW002
This video does a great job of explaining the case Mapp v. Ohio and all the exclusionary rules. It really takes each one and breaks it down and explains it and for each one they find a case that matches that rule and they go into some detail on how the rule took effect during that case. I'm glad that they added the exclusionary rules but they had to do it at a bad time after a case. Which that's how America really does things is they wait for it to happen then they scramble to fix it. I just think when they came up with the amendment if they would have thought a little bit harder on it they would have came up with these rules before the case ever happened. None the less though they came up with these rules that are some good rules and gives law enforcement really the benefit of the doubt. JE002
Maybe they added the exclusionary rule on after the case just to make it look good in the beginning like they had an actual case when they really didn't. Im glad they used that with this case though because all of it was unfair and I'm sure they knew it the whole time. Kt002
I thought that the video did a good job explaining the rule and the case as well, JE002. I think that the exclusionary rule is a very good one, and keeps police officers in check when doing their job in the field. gh_blackhawks002
I agree that this video does a great job of explaining the case and rule. I like the exclusionary rule, but I am also kind of against it too. I guess I just feel that if you find something illegal in someone's residence, even if it was through an illegal mean, that person has to pay the consequences of that illegal thing, whatever it is. Steve002
I agree with you I think they added exclusionary to keep cops in check or to help people out that been victimized of there 4th amendment. So then they can get lesser charge or have it drooped. I like how he also went into great detail of each case.Adelle002
Mapp V. Ohio is a case that has forever shaped the criminal justice system. A criminal investigation was taken place and somehow Mapp got involved in the system. She then has her home illegally broken into. She refuses to let the officers come in without a warrant. The officers then return with a fake warrant and they search her home. They found nothing that was pertinent to the case, however, they did find illegal pronography and arrested her. The arrest was made for resisting arrest, due to the fact that she would not let them in her house without a warrant. In court, the evidence was not able to be used because it was found under an illegal search warrant. The evidence could be considered “fruit off of the rotten tree”. The fourth and fourteenth amendment both had a role in letting Mapp get off the hook without charges. OASIS_002
The case with Mapp v. Ohio is explained extremely well in this video. Mapp was unrightfully charged. She wouldn't let them into her home because she had that right. When they knocked on her door she said that they can't come in unless they have a warrant and they didn't. she was able to tell them no because of the fourth amendment. when they went into her house with a fake warrant that they obtained and searched her house they found a chest under her bed that contained child pornography. The arrested her and took her to court. The evidence was not able to be used because it was obtained illegally. The video explained the exclusionary rule extremely well. It even noted that it is just like Swiss cheese because it has many holes and ways to get around that rule. Some examples was the plain view, which is when a officer sees something in plain sight so they don't have to have a warrant. If the curtain is open and the officer sees something he ha the right to come and arrest you. If he smells an odor from a drug on you he has the right to search you. If he sees something illegal sitting in your car he has the right to arrest you. Another one is the honest mistake, if the warrant was typed up with the wrong address and you go to the actual house you were suppose to go they will see that as honest mistake. say you are suppose to go to 2008 N. river st but the officer has a warrant for 3008 N. river st. they will see that as honest mistake. AW002
In Mapp v. Ohio, Mrs. Mapp had her house broken into. Following that, police wanted to search her house but she declined because the officers did not have a search warrant. The police officers then came back with a fake search warrant and came into the house to search it. Upon entering the house, police found pornography in her room. They then arrested her for having such pornography. Since the officers came into the house without a legitimate warrant, this evidence was illegally obtained and cannot be used in court. This principle is covered by the exclusionary rule, which states exactly that. Any evidence that is illegally obtained may not be used as evidence in court. gh_blackhawks002
This video explains how a woman, Doralene Mapp, had her constitutional rights violated. Law Enforcement officers attempted to enter and search Mrs. Mapp's house. However she declined them because they did not have a search warrant to do so. The police officers came back and showed her a piece of paper, which turned out to be a fake warrant. The officers then searched her house. After entering Mrs Mapp's house, the police found pornography in her bedroom. They then arrested her for having the pornography. This situation broke the fourth amendment. First, the officers entered the house with a false warrant in hand. Second, the evidence the police collected was not what they were even looking for and was illegally obtained. This is what the exclusionary rule covers. It says that any evidence that is illegally obtained may not be used as evidence in court. That was the rule in Mapp v Ohio. Steve002
This video is basically showing how her rights were violated and there was no warrant for them to search her house. They had illigally gathered evidance of the porangraphy and charged her with it and arrested her.I think they should not have arrested her because they violated her 4th amendment because there was no warrant.They should have never sent her to trial because the evidence should have been thrown out. Plus they were not even looking for that stuff only for thing that were like for bombs or things pertaining to it. They only came upon that looking for that stuff. Even though they were not even suppose to be in there looking for anything because there was no warrant. They just forced themselves in. This is highly unprofessional in this matter. Also where other people's right were violated and he explained them. They just need to change their way for the better because this way is messed up and not right.Adelle002
This entire video largely concerns itself with one situation. A woman, Mrs. Mapp, has her home illegally broken into. Law enforcers attempt to enter Mrs. Mapp's house to search it, in which she declines them because they do not have a search warrant. The police come back, shove a piece of paper into her face (which is a fake warrant) and they search her home. This offense breaks the fourth amendment. On top of that, the officers do not find anything that they were intentionally looking for. Instead, they found some illegal pornography in her room. The officers arrested her for this finding and her "resisting arrest" (she didn't let them in without a warrant)
ReplyDeleteThe fourteenth amendment forced law enforcement to follow the bill of rights and due process, no matter if the court is with state or federal levels.
Because the evidence found against Mrs. Mapp was under an illegal search warrant, the evidence is actually considered illegally obtained, and therefore invalid and void. The law cannot prosecute against Mrs. Mapp because nothing found against her was legally obtained, and she got off free. Officers must have a legal search warrant to search and seize any residence.
There are some loopholes to this rule. The Plain View Clause allows officers to search and seize when things are in plain sight. For example, if an officer sees you stab somebody in the back through your window, that officer has full legal authority to enter your home and make the arrest, and all evidence is legal. Same goes to if they see drugs in your car, they then can legally search your car. Also, if an officer or k9 unit smells drugs or other illegal substances, they are legally allowed to perform a search and seizer, even without getting a warrant first.
The phrase "Rotten Fruit of The Rotten Tree" is used in the video a lot, as well. This phrase is used to state that all intel found using illegally obtained evidence is illegal and void. If an officer illegally enters your home and obtains a map of bodies you have buried, all evidence and information obtained from that evidence is illegal. Even if the officers find those bodies, they found them because the evidence, and the evidence was void under law. However, if by chance the officers have reason to believe the bodies would have been found anyways, even without the map, then the case can still be used and the information is not considered void. For example, if there was already a mass search party in the areas where the body was found, it could be said that the evidence only helped find the information faster, but it would have been found either way. In this case, the information could still be used.
- AJC002 Ky002 JAG002 Ciaccio002 Giminy002
This video explains what happened between Doralene Mapp and how she believed the 4th amendment had everything to do with her case. In 1975 police investigated a bomb suspect and linked it back to Mapp through Don Kings number. They didn't think she was the suspect but they thought the suspect would be to her house. The police come knocking and she wouldn't let them in because she knew her rights and she knew they would need a warrant if they wanted to get in. Later on the police come knocking down her door, flashing a "warrant" in her face and starts searching for the suspect they knew had to be in there. But instead of finding what they were looking for they find a suitcase under her bed full of pornography and with that evidence they would use that against her in court. After the conviction she talks about the 4th amendment and how it should have been applied to her in the situation. They had no warrant so they we not free to come in and search her house. But since they found some valuable things like the pornography they actually had a case outside of that case. The exclusionary rule in all of this was used around the "plain view" of her findings. I don't think her case was fair from the begin with even though she got free, especially if they didn't have a search warrant in the first place and then lied about it. And what makes this unfair is that the suitcase full of evidence was not in plain view, they actually dug around in a house they had no permission of and found important things. I feel like the police who dealt with that should be the ones facing consequences for not following rules that they have full knowledge of. Kt002
ReplyDeleteYour right her case wasn't fair at the time but now thanks to that case we have fixed things. During this era police thought they were the law and they were the top dog and they could never get in trouble that's why all these things happened during this era. If you think about it though and if this case didn't happen or it got turned around completely who knows what the amendment would be like today and who knows if we would even have exclusionary rules. I find this case as a blessing in disguise for all the things it has done since this case. JE002
DeleteThe case of Mapp has forever shaped the criminal justice system. It has been really helpful in protecting innocent people, criminals, officers, and the public. With this bad case, we have many new terms and regulations set to ensure policing is being done correctly and all evidence is legal. This case has turned out much better results than expected. OASIS_002
DeleteIt wasn't fair for her to be prosecuted for them finding the pornography in the chest when they didn't even have the right to search her house. It as shaped the criminal justice system and made it what it is today, even though it isn't perfect it is still better than what it was back in the earlier days. AW002
DeleteThis video does a great job of explaining the case Mapp v. Ohio and all the exclusionary rules. It really takes each one and breaks it down and explains it and for each one they find a case that matches that rule and they go into some detail on how the rule took effect during that case. I'm glad that they added the exclusionary rules but they had to do it at a bad time after a case. Which that's how America really does things is they wait for it to happen then they scramble to fix it. I just think when they came up with the amendment if they would have thought a little bit harder on it they would have came up with these rules before the case ever happened. None the less though they came up with these rules that are some good rules and gives law enforcement really the benefit of the doubt. JE002
ReplyDeleteMaybe they added the exclusionary rule on after the case just to make it look good in the beginning like they had an actual case when they really didn't. Im glad they used that with this case though because all of it was unfair and I'm sure they knew it the whole time. Kt002
DeleteI thought that the video did a good job explaining the rule and the case as well, JE002. I think that the exclusionary rule is a very good one, and keeps police officers in check when doing their job in the field.
Deletegh_blackhawks002
I agree that this video does a great job of explaining the case and rule. I like the exclusionary rule, but I am also kind of against it too. I guess I just feel that if you find something illegal in someone's residence, even if it was through an illegal mean, that person has to pay the consequences of that illegal thing, whatever it is. Steve002
DeleteI agree with you I think they added exclusionary to keep cops in check or to help people out that been victimized of there 4th amendment. So then they can get lesser charge or have it drooped. I like how he also went into great detail of each case.Adelle002
DeleteMapp V. Ohio is a case that has forever shaped the criminal justice system. A criminal investigation was taken place and somehow Mapp got involved in the system. She then has her home illegally broken into. She refuses to let the officers come in without a warrant. The officers then return with a fake warrant and they search her home. They found nothing that was pertinent to the case, however, they did find illegal pronography and arrested her. The arrest was made for resisting arrest, due to the fact that she would not let them in her house without a warrant.
ReplyDeleteIn court, the evidence was not able to be used because it was found under an illegal search warrant. The evidence could be considered “fruit off of the rotten tree”. The fourth and fourteenth amendment both had a role in letting Mapp get off the hook without charges.
OASIS_002
The case with Mapp v. Ohio is explained extremely well in this video. Mapp was unrightfully charged. She wouldn't let them into her home because she had that right. When they knocked on her door she said that they can't come in unless they have a warrant and they didn't. she was able to tell them no because of the fourth amendment. when they went into her house with a fake warrant that they obtained and searched her house they found a chest under her bed that contained child pornography. The arrested her and took her to court. The evidence was not able to be used because it was obtained illegally. The video explained the exclusionary rule extremely well. It even noted that it is just like Swiss cheese because it has many holes and ways to get around that rule. Some examples was the plain view, which is when a officer sees something in plain sight so they don't have to have a warrant. If the curtain is open and the officer sees something he ha the right to come and arrest you. If he smells an odor from a drug on you he has the right to search you. If he sees something illegal sitting in your car he has the right to arrest you. Another one is the honest mistake, if the warrant was typed up with the wrong address and you go to the actual house you were suppose to go they will see that as honest mistake. say you are suppose to go to 2008 N. river st but the officer has a warrant for 3008 N. river st. they will see that as honest mistake. AW002
ReplyDeleteIn Mapp v. Ohio, Mrs. Mapp had her house broken into. Following that, police wanted to search her house but she declined because the officers did not have a search warrant. The police officers then came back with a fake search warrant and came into the house to search it. Upon entering the house, police found pornography in her room. They then arrested her for having such pornography. Since the officers came into the house without a legitimate warrant, this evidence was illegally obtained and cannot be used in court. This principle is covered by the exclusionary rule, which states exactly that. Any evidence that is illegally obtained may not be used as evidence in court.
ReplyDeletegh_blackhawks002
This video explains how a woman, Doralene Mapp, had her constitutional rights violated. Law Enforcement officers attempted to enter and search Mrs. Mapp's house. However she declined them because they did not have a search warrant to do so. The police officers came back and showed her a piece of paper, which turned out to be a fake warrant. The officers then searched her house. After entering Mrs Mapp's house, the police found pornography in her bedroom. They then arrested her for having the pornography. This situation broke the fourth amendment. First, the officers entered the house with a false warrant in hand. Second, the evidence the police collected was not what they were even looking for and was illegally obtained. This is what the exclusionary rule covers. It says that any evidence that is illegally obtained may not be used as evidence in court. That was the rule in Mapp v Ohio. Steve002
ReplyDeleteThis video is basically showing how her rights were violated and there was no warrant for them to search her house. They had illigally gathered evidance of the porangraphy and charged her with it and arrested her.I think they should not have arrested her because they violated her 4th amendment because there was no warrant.They should have never sent her to trial because the evidence should have been thrown out. Plus they were not even looking for that stuff only for thing that were like for bombs or things pertaining to it. They only came upon that looking for that stuff. Even though they were not even suppose to be in there looking for anything because there was no warrant. They just forced themselves in. This is highly unprofessional in this matter. Also where other people's right were violated and he explained them. They just need to change their way for the better because this way is messed up and not right.Adelle002
ReplyDelete