in regards XXXXX XXXXX V. Ohio What remedies are available to Dollree Mapp besides the exclusion of the evidence? Which would you reccomend?
Optional Information: State/Country relating to question: Massachusetts Already Tried: google
Hi,
We've worked together before, and I would love to help you with this question. Tell me more about what you need. Length, etc.? Due date?
What remedies are available to Dollree Mapp besides the exclusion of the evidence? Which would you reccomend? I basically just need to know this information and which remedies you would recomend. I need this by 10pm tonight please
On May 23, 1957, police officers in a Cleveland, Ohio suburb received information that a suspect in a bombing case, as well as some illegal betting equipment, might be found in the home of Dollree Mapp. Three officers went to the home and asked for permission to enter, but Mapp refused to admit them without a search warrant. Two officers left, and one remained. Three hours later, the two returned with several other officers. Brandishing a piece of paper, they broke in the door. Mapp asked to see the “warrant” and took it from an officer, putting it in her dress. The officers struggled with Mapp and took the piece of paper away from her. They handcuffed her for being “belligerent.”
Police found neither the bombing suspect nor the betting equipment during their search, but they did discover some pornographic material in a suitcase by Mapp's bed. Mapp said that she had loaned the suitcase to a boarder at one time and that the contents were not her property. She was arrested, prosecuted, found guilty, and sentenced for possession of pornographic material. No search warrant was introduced as evidence at her trial.
Even if they had a search warrant, it would have been for a bombing suspect, or betting equipment, not for pornographic material, so they couldn't have taken that stuff anyway. The rule is called the "elephant in the breadbox". If they are looking for a bombing suspect, for instance, he could hardly have been in a box under the bed. Nor, would the betting equipment.
Another example would be if they were looking for a stolen car, they could go through her dresser drawers because there would definitely be no stolen car in there.
So, what they found with no warrant (exclusionary rule) could not be used. But, even if they had one, they would not have legally been able to be looking for books, but for the suspect and probably stuff like those betting wheel things, crap tables, or whatever.
Ms. Mapp still would have had a good case.
thanks
Experience: B.A., J.D., teacher, tutor, lawyer