Dollree mapp pictures
- What did dollree mapp have in her home
- How old was dollree mapp in 1961
- Mapp v ohio dissenting opinion
- •
Dollree MAPP, etc., Appellant, v. OHIO.
367 U.S. 643
81 S.Ct. 1684
6 L.Ed.2d 1081
Dollree MAPP, etc., Appellant,
v.
OHIO.
No. 236.
Argued March 29, 1961.
Decided June 19, 1961.
Rehearing Denied Oct.9 , 1961.
See 82 S.Ct. 23.
Mr. A. L. Kearns, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.
Mr. Bernard A. Berkman, Cleveland, Ohio, for American Civil Liberties Union and the Ohio Civil Liberties Union, as amici curiae.
Mrs. ,Gertrude Bauer Mahon, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellee.
Mr. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellant stands convicted of knowingly having had in her possession and under her control certain lewd and lascivious books, pictures, and photographs in violation of § 2905.34 of Ohio's Revised Code.1 As officially stated in the syllabus to its opinion, the Supreme Court of Ohio found that her conviction was valid though 'based primarily upon the introduction in evidence of lewd and lascivious books and pictures unlawfully seized during an unlawful search of defendant's home * * *.' 170 Ohio St. 427—428, 166 N.E.2d 387, 388.
On May 23, 1957, three
- •
Mapp v. Ohio
1961 US Supreme Court ruling
1961 United States Supreme Court case
| Mapp v. Ohio | |
|---|---|
Supreme Court of the United States | |
| Full case name | Dollree Mapp, et al. v. State of Ohio |
| Citations | 367 U.S.643 (more) 81 S. Ct. 1684; 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081; 1961 U.S. LEXIS 812; 86 Ohio L. Abs. 513; 16 Ohio Op. 2d 384; 84 A.L.R.2d 933 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Prior | Defendant convicted, Cuyahoga County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas; affirmed, Ohio Court of Appeals; affirmed, Ohio Supreme Court 166 N.E.2d 387 (Ohio 1960) |
| Subsequent | Rehearing denied, 368 U.S. 871 (1961). |
| Were the confiscated materials protected from seizure by the Fourth Amendment? | |
| The Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth, excludes unconstitutionally obtained evidence from use in criminal prosecutions. Ohio Supreme Court reversed. | |
| |