Can the Police Use Evidence They Got Illegally? | Mapp v. Ohio
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 พ.ค. 2018
- I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy here: amzn.to/45Wzhur
Patreon: / iammrbeat
Mr. Beat's band: electricneedleroom.us
Mr. Beat on Twitter: / beatmastermatt
In episode 32 of Supreme Court Briefs, police break into a home of a citizen and later charge her with having sexually explicit material.
Music by Isaac Sander.
Check out cool primary sources here:
www.oyez.org/cases/1960/236
Other sources used:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapp_v....
www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/c...
www.clevelandmemory.org/legall...
cobras.clevelandsgs.com/2010/1...
www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/us...
supreme.justia.com/cases/fede...
billofrightsinstitute.org/edu...
Photo credits:
Shawn Lea
Mikerussell
Nick Youngson
Cleveland, Ohio
May 23, 1957
Someone sets a bomb off at Don King’s house. Yep, that Don King, the future boxer promoter who at the time was a controversial bookie who had many enemies. So yeah, apparently one of those enemies was whoever bombed his house that day. The Cleveland police got a tip that a another bookie named Virgil Ogletree might have been involved with the bombing, and that he was hiding out in the house of Dollree Mapp. They also suspected stuff to make a bomb might be at the house.
Three Cleveland police officers get to Mapp’s house, knock on the door and she answers. They ask to enter, but Mapp says “you gotta warrant?” After the police say no, she refuses to let them in. Two of the officers leave, but one hangs out across the street to stake out the place. Three hours later, even more officers return and knock on her door. This time Mapp doesn’t answer, and they break down the door and enter without permission. Mapp asks again to see a warrant. One of the officers shows her a piece of paper that is supposedly the warrant. She snatches the paper and puts it in her blouse. The officer reaches inside her clothing and she resists while he tries to get it back. He eventually does it get it back, and that piece of paper is never seen again.
The police handcuffed Mapp and continued to search her home. They did find Ogletree, who later was cleared of being connected to the bombing, but while they were looking for him they also found evidence of illegal gambling, a pistol, and a small collection of sexually explicit materials that a previous resident had left behind.
The Cleveland police arrested Mapp for having the gambling stuff but was later cleared. However, she didn’t cooperate with authorities very well, and several months later they turned around and charged her with having the sexually explicit materials, which apparently was illegal in Ohio at the time. Illegal, Mr. Beat? Yes, in 1957 it was illegal to possess “obscene materials.” Mapp was found guilty and sentenced to up to seven years in prison.
Mapp appealed to the Ohio Court of Appeals for the Eighth District, arguing that the Ohio law banning the possession of obscene material went against the First Amendment. But what about the Fourth Amendment, Mr. Beat? (weird voice) Well, surprisingly, the Fourth Amendment wasn’t Mapp’s focus, but she could have also said that the police broke the Fourth Amendment when they searched through her stuff. Specifically, the police had no probable cause to suspect her of having the sexually explicit books, and they couldn’t use the books as evidence in court because they were found without a warrant. In addition, Mapp could have argued to get the 4th Amendment applied to both the state and local level, not just the federal level.
The Ohio Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court, so Mapp appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court. They also agreed, so she appealed to the Supreme uh Supreme Court. By this time, 4 years had passed since the police had raided Mapp’s home. The Court heard oral arguments on March 29, 1961.
It was soon apparent that the Court didn’t give a darn about the First Amendment...in this case. Lemme finish. They didn’t give a darn about the First Amendment IN THIS CASE. Instead, they were all focused on the 4th amendment. You see, there was this law called the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule said you couldn’t use evidence if the police got it illegally. It had been applied since 1914 in the ruling for the case Weeks v. United States, but only at the federal level. In the 1949 decision Wolf v. Colorado, the Court had declined to extend exclusionary protections at the state level.
On June 19, 1961, the Court announced its decision.
My book about everything you need to know about the Supreme Court is now available!
Amazon: amzn.to/3Jj3ZnS
Bookshop (a collection of indie publishers): bookshop.org/books/the-power-of-and-frustration-with-our-supreme-court-100-supreme-court-cases-you-should-know-about-with-mr-beat/9781684810680
Barnes and Noble: www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-matt-beat/1142323504?ean=9781684810680
Amazon UK: www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=the+power+of+our+supreme+court&crid=3R59T7TQ6WKI3&sprefix=the+power+of+our+supreme+courth%2Caps%2C381&ref=nb_sb_noss
Mango: mango.bz/books/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-2523-b
Target: www.target.com/p/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-paperback/-/A-86273023
Walmart: www.walmart.com/ip/The-Power-of-Our-Supreme-Court-How-the-Supreme-Court-Cases-Shape-Democracy-Paperback-9781684810680/688487495
Chapters Indigo: www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/the-power-of-our-supreme/9781684810680-item.html?ikwid=The+Power+of+Our+Supreme+Court&ikwsec=Home&ikwidx=0#algoliaQueryId=eab3e89ad34051a62471614d72966b7e
"Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than . . . its disregard of the charter of its own existence." . . . Oh snap, indeed, Justice Clark!!!
Loved that justice's address there!
Mapp is a god damn legal operator, putting it in her blouse was a smart move but she's like a chess grandmaster playing against a flock of pigeons.
Due to the common use of bail bonds,I feel the 8th Amendment "No excessive bail" gets abused!
Not to mention solitary confinement.
If police departments and sheriffs offices would have for crime labs for quicker forensics to prove or debunk their evidences, there would be a decreased demand for high bail bondsman amounts.
@@iammrbeat Solitary confinement is legitimate punishment for heinous crimes
@@Nimish204 Solitary confinement is torture.
@@Nimish204 The UN don't think so, nor does any other civilised country on Earth allow it for prolonged periods of time. Solitary confinement should in theory reduce crime though, but only because the insane aren't guilty of crimes. It is extremely damaging to the mental and physical health of those exposed to it, whilst it can be necessary to be used in the short term for extreme circumstances, it is far too often employed for years over very minor infractions including insolence which could be talking too loud. If this wasn't bad enough jails use it as well meaning a good portion of people subjected to this torture are innocent in the eyes of the law since all people are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
Thanks Mr. Beat! I'm not an American and have never been to the states, but I still watch all of your videos because you make learning fun! It's always interesting to compare US cases to cases in other countries to see the difference in principals, values and approaches to legal issues. Thanks again Mr Beat - you're amazing! Much love from around the world!
Where are you from? That makes me so happy to see that there are those outside the United States that dig the videos :)
Mr. Beat I'm a law student in the UK, and my lecturers and professors always draw distinctions between European laws and principles compared to the crazy Americans :p its interesting to see different approaches to civil liberties and human rights e.g. how European hate speech laws contrast with American freedom of speech laws, which are more protected. You're the type of teacher that every kid wishes they had, and I hope you can rest easy knowing that you've educated and improved the knowledge and lives of thousands of people across nations, cultures and continents, many of whom you might not ever meet in real life buy all are grateful to you nonetheless! Thanks again for the video and for taking the time to respond - as long as you'll be uploading videos, I will be watching!!
The decision in Mapp v. Ohio is a very important precedent within the context of the 4th amendment. Police officers now have to have probable cause as well as a search warrant that describes with particularity what the scope of the search will be. A motion to suppress can be filed if the evidence was obtained illegally.
Only problem is law enforcement can still use "probable cause" to extend the scope of their search once they're in your home. That's why some lawyers will tell you to say something along the lines of "I do not consent to any searching that goes beyond the scope of the warrant."
Mr. beast for the memes and Mr. beat for the history
What about history memes?
@@iammrbeat time to make a second channel
Nah, Mr. Beat beats him.
Drew Durnil
For history memes we use oversimplified and drew durnil
This was amazing! I'm a Sophomore in high school and am taking a Criminal Investigation course. I have to write a paper on a search and seizure case and turned to TH-cam since I learn better visually and not by reading. This broke everything down into things I could better understand to put into a paper, while still going into great detail. Thank you Mr. Beat, and I will be subscribing! :)
Friday is my favorite day because it's the last day of the week and Mr. Beat puts out a new video.
aw thanks! :D
Your primary sources are a goldmine. Thanks so much!
Thanks for the videos! I'm not sure what else to say but they are definitely fun (if a bit cheesy at times) and they have definitely helped me learn more about all these supreme court cases!
That means a lot, Bryson. Thank you. And yes, cheesiness is my speciality. Ha!
Good morning Mr. Beat! Thanks as always
Good morning! :D
Hey I love your videos, I found out about your channel from school and I just have to say that your videos make me love history even more, keep up the good work.
I agree with the court because it was an invasion of privacy from the police. Great video Mr Beat!
Then the 👮 digging under the lady's 👕 with probably no lady 👮 with them. That's bordering on harassment... Unfortunately, they didn't prosecute sexual harassment 65 years ago & women still didn't have the respect nor opportunities that we have in the 21st century...
Thanks for taking my recommendation; another awesome video!
Which of the Bill of Rights are most under attack right now?
It is in my humble opinion (for what it is worth) a tie between 1st and 2nd Amendments but the attack on any Amendment (including the 4th Amendment) scares me.
The Third Mr. Beat! Joking, of course. I'd The First, then again I'd say it's always under attack for various reasons.
Legislatively, I think the Second Amendment is the most under attack. In terms of the government just disregarding the law, I think the 4th Amendment is under attack the most.
4th if it was effective the DHS wouldn't have been existed
The second amendment. After all it was not there to deter tyrannical deer
If you want to be really technical, almost all of the amendments in some way have been broken by the US at some point in time. I’d say most recently the first, second, and fourth amendments are most under attack right now
When has the Quartering Amendment ever been broken?
@@IkeOkerekeNews yes
@@IkeOkerekeNews yes
@@xFlRSTx
Source?
@@IkeOkerekeNews en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey
Great one Mr. Beat one of my favorites
One of my favorite cases, too. About time I got to it!
Excellent lecture. I got a better picture of this story this way.Thank you Mr. Beat
Nice job! I think I'm going to show this to my civics class since we have end-of-course exams coming up.
Thank you, and so glad you can use it in your classroom! :D
Falls under “fruit of the poisonous tree” & all evidence is inadmissible in court!!
The insanity of sentencing someone to 7 years in prison for possessing porn is just... wow
My history teacher told us she owned csem (child p0rn) so maybe is more serious than that
@@lolfacelolacc But that is not what she was accused of and found guilty of, and frankly I have never heard anyone talk about her owning child porn. If your teacher has a source for that I'd like to see it, but it sounds like she is wrong.
The woman was shady AF and they were going to tack on everything that they thought they could.
The "Rosa Parks of the 4th amendment" later went to prison for slinging heroin. What a hero.
We don't have bomb making material. Just an illegal gambling ring.
@@jamesmiller5331 You don't get to send someone to prison for "Being shady AF". She didn't have bomb making material so I'm not sure what your point is there. And you don't get to justify mistreating someone by pointing out that they did something bad later in life, that's complete nonsense. It doesn't matter if you consider her a "hero" or not, the fact remains that she was sentenced to 7 years in prison for possessing porn, which is complete insanity. And that's not even to touch on how they obtained that evidence illegally.
@Misha the Fridge nah I get it. Technicalities and all that. Can't get me for murder when all I'm doing is pimping and slinging dope.
But I'll kid myself when I ask why the cops want to kick in my door. Cry foul and all that.
Darn! Don kings home was the bomb
You are relentless with the puns
I still can't believe you have not yet reached a million subscribers
Another great summary of things.
Just out of curiosity, have you done any research on Conn. vs. Teal?
No I haven't, but will definitely check it out now.
One of the most interesting SCB yet!
Did all the accused people from the Supreme Court briefs actually spent their time in jail until they had the opportunity for their appeal? I mean apparently it’s not unusual to wait several years until the lower decisions become overturned
Glad they sided with Mapp, the police unlawfully broke in and charged her with ridiculous crimes that they weren’t even originally intending to find her guilty of.
You shouldn’t be allowed to be charge with a crime even if you committed it if the police didn’t unlawfully and without original intent.
The fourth, with illegal internet surveillance, civil asset forfeiture and destruction of property when carrying out searches. But the second is a close second.
Hey Mr. Beat, I know this is Supreme Court Briefs. But may you cover the case Engblom v. Carey?
the picture you used for Don king wasn't the person who they suspected to be at dollree's house. you show a picture of Virgil @0:41 but later show the pic of Don king as being in her house... was this a mix up?
Oooo Mr bent , Prometheus ,what firing knowledge to give us Mortals today
Have you ever heard of Diamond v. Chakrabarty? Interesting implications from that case
Good video! Thank you.
Hey, I'd Really Appreciate To See A Vid About No Child Left Behind In Detail. Btw Your Vids Are Good,Keep It Up
I will eventually get to that topic
@@iammrbeat when?
I’d say the main amendments under attack are the fourth, first and second in that order, especially as technology increases and because the government says we need more security
I agree the 4th I think the 1sr and 2nd are always being attacked consistently but the 4th right now the government seems to completely ignore all the time your see people pulled. Over out of the car being searched. Growing up I rarely seen it and when I did I always thought oh boy I wonder what they did…. Now there is a good chance it is nothing
Yeah, the exclusionary rule is pretty necessary at all levels, otherwise the police would have no reason follow the 4th Amendment in the first place!
Sure, individual violations can be punished even up to being suspended or fired, but if everyone decides to ignore it on a casual basis, well, you can't just dump an entire police force.
Speaking of property rights, how about United States v. Causby?
Mr. Beat, has there ever been a Supreme Court Case involving the 3rd amendment?
Engblom v. Carey, and that's pretty much it.
What inspired your interest in history
And
When pursuing history how do you handle significant conflicts in records
And
Do you have a favorite library or research source material
The Police:Well there were 1000 bodies but we didn’t have a warnt
I was expecting the video is all about inevitable discovery doctrine. which make illegally obtain evidence admissible.
Thx!
Do u have KOREMATSU V. US case
Hey Beat! I actually live in Ohio! Westerville Ohio
I had to Google where that was. It appears you are just a couple hours away from where Mapp lived.
woah i am from Westerville too
@iammrbeat As you found out, Columbus and its suburbs are approximately two hours south of Cleveland.
@@willsmith5166I had college classmates from Westerville.
You didn't mention what the reasoning of the judges that voted against was.
They didn't think the exclusionary rule should be applied to the states.
President During this time: John F. Kennedy
Chief Justice: Earl Warren
Argued March 29, 1961
Decided June 19, 1961
Case Duration: 82 Days
Decision: 6-3 in favor of Mapp (Warren, Brennan Jr., Douglas, Black, Clark, Stewart. Frankfurter, Harlan, Whittaker for Ohio.)
ty!
@@AmericanFlintlock yw
are you saved by jesus?@@ashtoncollins868
Good video and odd case
Kinda wish they struck down obscenity laws too... Guess you can't win them all.
So the constable blundered, and the criminal goes free, to prey on society?
It's a necessary evil to make sure there isn't blatant, widespread disregard for the 4th Amendment.
This is why American politics are so much cooler than British politics. We’re all about the constitution, and amendments, and the Supreme Court, they don’t have none of that!
Only thing cool that they have, are votes of no convidence, the “shadow government”, and of course, the Monster Raving Loony Party.
Yeah, the U.K.'s system of government was built in such a patchwork fashion over so many centuries that it must be extremely difficult to judge many controversial issues.
Wait, doesn't porn fall under the First Amendment? Is there a Supreme Court case that falls in favor of pornography as protected under the First Amendment (besides Miller v. California or Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson)?
This page sums it up all pretty well: courses2.cit.cornell.edu/sociallaw/student_projects/ObscenityFirstAmendment.htm "Obscenity" is such a hard thing to measure, basically.
Alright, thanks.
Definitely the Fourth Amendment. You don't know the half of it.
Ah well thanks Don King without you this case never would've happened 😂😂
4th amendment, easily. 1st, 2nd, 10th are also notable.
My hometown since I was born in 1986
It’s the 4th, 5th, and in Congress it’s the 1st and 2nd.
Excellent
Mr. Beast without the 's' xD
the sex offender registry (while hugely supported) does violate the 5th, 8th, and 14th amendments)
It's no more double jeopardy than the many other things excluded to people with previous criminal records. Cruel or unusual punishment? Not really. Violation of civil rights or due process? Nope, since as mentioned it's perfectly legal to target former criminals in certain ways; while they won't get in trouble again as long as they follow the rules, so their due process rights are still intact as much as anyone on parole.
idk dawg
The second Amendment for me
"Only in America" -DK
Earl Warren is my favourite chief justice
I've always said the 4th is the most attacked.
thanks a lot
Informative!
I see the junk in my pants everyday, they are what fall under obscene materials but only in picture form. I can own my junk in its original form just not as a picture lol
For the amendments most under attack, I would say the 2nd and 4th. At least SCOTUS is hearing a lot of cases on the 4th though. Hopefully, the 4th is restored with the Carpenter case this term. I love and agree wholeheartedly with Gorsuch's property rights interpretation(essentially he said the records belonged to Carpenter and therefore required a warrant, rather than a privacy interpretation). Interesting how the 18th and 19th century interpretation fits our modern technological world better than the 20th century one.
For the 2nd, hopefully, SCOTUS hears more cases on the 2A because it seems like it's treating it as a 2nd class right
I didn't know about that interpretation by Gorsuch. I like it. He has been a bit of an enigma so far on the bench. I also agree the Court needs to hear many more 2nd Amendment cases. I mean, there have only been like 3 or 4 so far, right? Speaking of which, the US v Miller case is coming soon.
Mr. Beat This is a really liberal blog so it's very biased(just a heads up) but it explains his interpretation fairly well despite the obvious bias(even if it's a bias in favor of his interpretation) www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/11/in_carpenter_v_united_states_neil_gorsuch_showed_his_independent_streak.html
I don't think he's much of an enigma, I think he's just an originalist in the mold of Scalia who was also willing to vote with the liberals on the 4A. And agreed on the 2A, the only major ones I can think of off the top of my head are Cruikshank (which I know nothing about), Miller, Heller, and McDonald. There was a case in 2016 where SCOTUS ruled unanimously that stun guns are protected called Caetano v Massachusetts but that's not a major case.
Mr. Beat That link is from only a day or 2 after the oral arguments in Carpenter
Do Kilo v. New London.
I totally forgot about that one. It's a great case!
Ghawk Kelo is one of the worst decisions they've ever made. Hopefully, if Trump gets another nominee, we can get that overturned since eminent domain cases are usually 5-4, conservatives on one side, liberals + Kennedy on the other
I know it is bad, but it needs to be covered.
Ghawk Not disagreeing with you. Honestly, it needs to be covered because it is such a bad decision
C'mon Matt we had our test on this court case in my history class last week T^T
OH MAN. HOW THE HECK. I'm sorry. That's just really bad luck. :(
Mr. Beat It's fine don't worry lol. We only had to remember the outcome of the case and what it established. Still this video would've been helpful :(
*Mrs. Mapp just died in 2014 at age 91...
Florida is the state that linger on
You need to get a rimshot sound effect.
You like the rimshot? I have one somewhere on my hard drive.
I'd say the 2nd is under some pressure.
Fruit of the poisonous tree.
I didn't catch it, why didn't the police just get the warrant?
They didn't have grounds for a warrant
Once🐷 always 🐷
These days, it's most certainly the 14th Amendment that's most under fire.
Me beat the 2nd is the amendment under the most threat at this point in time
MR BEAT SIXHUNDRED
mr breast can i please have a band
Virgil Ogletree is a really cool name. That’s what I took away from this.
What was the minority opinion of the court?
They didn't think the exclusionary rule should be applied to the states.
Isn’t there another case that allows evidence obtained illegally, as long as the person who found it was not a cop/lawyer/defendant? Or was that something I saw on law and order?
Second Amendment
Mr beat i like your hamburgers and chocolate barz
I am unable to stop thinking how Ms.Mapp's name is almost my favorite stores name: Dollree you remind me of Dollartree
Are you a lawyer?
No, but it feels like I've been in law school the past year and a half. I do teach American government.
Only in Ohio 💀💀💀
ALTHOUGH I WOULD RATHER LIVE SOME ELSE , IT ISNOT BY THAT MUCH ANYMORE....
I WOULD CERTAINLY RATHER LIVE HERE THAN WARREN MICHIGAN OR WHERE I CAME FROM....
#overturnterryvohio
The third!
Only in Ohio💀
Mmmmmmmmm
Second
Imagine you send the cops back to get a warrant and not getting rid of the evidence of your criminal activities before they come back. How can someone be this dumb.
The 2nd amendment no doubt is the amendment most under attacked.
I agree with the police,
Even tough the evidence was obtained "illegally" she was collaborating with a criminal, making a valid reason to make the evidence legitimate
it doesn't matter; they didn't get a warrant
Only in Ohio: