Mapp v. Ohio
Facts
After being notified that a bombing suspect was hiding in a petitioner’s residence, they attempted at searching the premises. The petitioner, however, asked the policemen to prove the legitimacy of the procedure with a search warrant.
After the policemen returned with the warrant, the petitioner refused to open the door anyway, which was the reason for the policemen to open it by force. As soon as the policemen showed the petitioner the warrant, she snatched it out of the policemen’s hands and concealed it.
After recovering the warrant and placing the petitioner under arrest, the policemen continued the search, which resulted in finding obscene materials in the trunk hidden in the petitioner’s basement. As a result, the petitioner was convicted of possession of pornographic materials.
Judicial history
The defendant was convicted by the Ohio Court of Common Pleas.
Issue
The legitimacy of the data acquired in the course of the search that violates the Fourth Amendment is questioned in the given case.
Rule/Holding
The evidence extracted in the course of the search, which did not comply with the existing law and violated the principles of the Fourth Amendment, was considered inadmissible for the use in the court proceedings.
Reasoning
The court based its decision on the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.
Katz v. United States
Facts
Katz, i.e., the “petitioner,” used a phone booth to inform his accomplice on the changes concerning wagers that were hold in Los Angeles, CA. The recipients were located in Boston, MA and Miami, FL. As soon as the breach of law was confirmed, the FBI representatives installed a device that allowed for phone tapping in the given booth.
Thereafter, the conversations that the petitioner had with his accomplices were recorded and used as evidence later. However, the fact that a phone tapping device was used in a public booth was considered against the principles of the Fourth Amendment and the violation of the petitioner’s freedoms, which was the reason for the case to be granted a certiorari and passed on to a higher court to handle.
Judicial history
The defendant was acquitted in the United States Court of Appeals due to the lack of legitimate evidence.
Issue
The legitimacy of the evidence recorded in a public phone booth without people’s awareness of the booth being tapped is the issue in the given case.
Rule/Holding
The court ruled in favor of Katz, seeing how the acquisition of information from personal conversations follows not a place, but a person and, therefore, cannot be considered as legally acquired evidence.
Reasoning
The decision was based on the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.
Scenario: Case Brief
Facts
After receiving an anonymous call from a concerned person about a former terrorist Mr. Darwood planning to blow up a church, policemen broke into Robert P. Darwood’s house. With a record of an arrest and a charge for possessing an illegal weapon and a controlled substance, Mr. Darwood was considered a threat to the neighborhood by the police.
At first, Mr. Darwood refused to let the police in since they did not have the search warrant. However, after the policemen obtained the warrant and returned, Darwood refused to open the door again, since he was ill and, thus, unable to open it. Therefore, after Darwood refused to open the door under the pretext of being ill, the police broke into the premises. The search returned little results, with no proof of Darwood’s bombing the church.
As it turned out, it was a case of mistaken identity, and the real bomber, Robert Darwood, lived in another city. However, the police did find cocaine and a weapon. Thereafter, the police prohibited Mr. Darwood from calling his lawyer.
Issue
The legitimacy of the evidence acquired in the course of the search that violates the principles of the Fourth Amendment is the issue here.
Comparison: Scenario and Mapp v. Ohio
Looking back at the Mapp vs. Ohio case, one must admit that it does not have a lot in common with the one of Mapp v. Ohio except for a small yet significant detail. In both cases, the policemen were attempting at conducting the search of the suspects’ houses without the search warrant.
While the given nuance might be considered nitpicking by the vast majority, seeing how in both cases, the police did find evidence against the suspects, it still raises a few concerns. It will be legitimate to ask if the police have the right to abuse their power, seeing how the people that they are after are most likely to be guilty anyway.
On the one hand, the given solution seems quite reasonable, since it levels the chances for the police to apprehend the suspects and prevent further crimes. On the other hand, resorting to illegal methods of proving their point police will stoop to the same level that criminals are on, which means that there will be little difference between the two.
The cases, however, also have a number of differences, the key one being the resolution. While in Mapp v. Ohio, the criminal uses the policemen’s abuse of power to sneak his way out of the case, in Darwood’s scenario, Robert Darwood is not guilty of what he is charged with, yet the results of the search reveal that he still possesses illegal substances and weapons.