The judicial system of any country is characterized by its laws, and rather often some of the prosecutive proceedings cause a serious public response. The same happened with the case called Mapp v. Ohio. This case, perhaps, was one of the first, which proved that the US judicial system has a lot of double interpretations. Therefore, the trial Mapp v. Ohio is considered one of the most significant in American history and proves that the legitimacy of the actions of the authorities can always be challenged by an already existing law or an amendment to it.
Details of the Mapp v. Ohio Court Case
This story became widely publicized as it was almost the first such a trial. The case took place in 1961 in Cleveland, Ohio. The police sergeant Delau had a call from one young man, Donald King, who later would become a famous boxing promoter, but at that moment he was just a criminal who had problems with the law. King provided the Sergeant with information about a man who allegedly had committed an attempt to kill him and at that moment was hiding in the house of Dollrey Mapp, a very tough African-American. Arriving at the scene, a group of police officers asked the woman to let them in, but she refused to do it, demanding a search warrant. In the end, the men got into the house by force, and their actions were ultimately considered illegal as they did not have a search-permitting document. According to Brandl (2017), citizens got enough freedoms from the government in the 1960s, which at the same time restricted the rights of police officers. Thus, this case perhaps became an example of not a well-coordinated work of the American justice system.
Reasons for filing a claim to the Supreme Court
Despite the apparent legitimacy of the guards’ actions their deeds that were subsequently described in court are quite difficult to call legitimate. As Martinez (2014) writes, even such a scandalous African-American as Dollree Mapp had all grounds for sending a claim to the US Supreme Court, so she did it. Even though this trial was held quite long ago the judicial system had already been bludgeoned up in such a way as to react to all civil suits. In this case, the African-American origin could hardly turn against Mapp herself. The explanation is straightforward: by that time such people as Dollree had already been full-fledged citizens of the country with all the rights and freedoms. Moreover, McConkie (2017) claims that the Supreme Court has organized a balanced system to determine if a particular procedure comports with a specific process. Therefore, the unlawfulness of the actions of those policemen who broke into the woman’s house and handcuffed her was quite evident even for such a serious reason as the capture of a dangerous criminal allegedly hiding in her home.
Possible Foundations for Avoiding a High-Profile Court Case
Perhaps, if the actions of the police were not so rude and their behavior was under the rules of order, such a high-profile case as Mapp v. Ohio probably would not have appeared. Arriving at the house of Dollree Mapp, the guards of order behaved rudely, and despite the remarks of the woman officers broke into her house, waving documents. The appeal of Mapp to the Supreme Court as the last instance seemed rather legitimate regarding the law, and no violations were committed. According to one lawyer mentioned in the book by Carp, Stidham, and Manning (2013), “The Supreme Court of the United States is distinctly American in conception and function, and owes little to prior judicial institutions” (p. 27). These words indicate the Court’s independent work as a government foundation of the law.
Order of the Correct Procedure for Handling Witnesses
The actions of those policemen who entered the house of the woman are not the same as an official witness interrogation process. Kadish, Schulhofer, and Barkow (2016) state that the questioning of a witness must take place in a strictly defined order. According to the law, the authorities had to first apply to Mapp formally with the requirement to check and report whether she hides a criminal in her home or not. Furthermore, Kilfeather (2016) notes that a witness is summoned to the court to give evidence; his or her words become a part of a trial and only then acquire a force to be taken into account. A properly prepared procedure for conducting a proceeding helps to exclude any inconsistencies and claims on the part of an accused, leaving him or her no chance to challenge the court decision.
Thereby, it is possible to say that the legitimacy of the actions of the authorities can always be contested by an already existing law or an amendment to it. Only full and legal observance of all the procedures can give an opportunity to conduct a court case correctly and so that neither side might have any claims to each other.
References
Brandl, S. G. (2017). Police in America. Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press.
Carp, R.A., Stidham, R., & Manning, K. L. (2013). Judicial process in America (9th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press.
Kadish, S. H., Schulhofer, S. J., & Barkow, R. E. (2016). Criminal law and its processes: Cases and materials. New York, NY: Wolters Kluwer.
Kilfeather, R. F. (2016). Managing and coordinating major criminal investigations (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Martinez, M. J. (2014). The greatest criminal cases: Changing the course of American law. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
McConkie, D. S. (2017). Structuring Pre-Plea Criminal Discovery. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 107(1). Web.