Mapp’s attorney appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio. The attorney argued that since the search was illegal, the evidence obtained from the search should also be illegal and therefore c

This time Mapp’s attorney appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The basic question was whether or not evidence obtained from an illegal search can be used as evidence to convict a suspect. This was a question of implications of the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment states “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” This does not define what is “unreasonable.” It also does not say how should the things found in an “unreasonable” search should be treated.

This case wasn’t the first case that put the fourth amendment to the Supreme Court. The previous case that was important was Wolfe v. Colorado. In the case the court ruled that the states are not forbidden to use evidence obtained from unreasonable search and seizure.

Justice Black delivered the concurring opinion. The concurring opinion accepted that fourth amendment alone couldn’t be interpreted as evidence gathered from an unreasonable sear

Some topics in this essay:
Supreme Court, Mapp Mapp, Court Ohio, Justice Black, Clause Fourteenth, Dollree Mapp, Wolfe Colorado, Justice Clark, Justice Harlan, Fifth Amendment, fourth amendment, supreme court, majority opinion, evidence obtained, evidence gathered, mapp’s attorney appealed, warrant mapp, search evidence, cause criminals, pornographic material, cause criminals free, police officers,