Answered You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.
Hi, I need help with essay on American Constitution Law 1.1. Paper must be at least 750 words. Please, no plagiarized work!Three hours later, the officers again sought to enter Miss Mapp’s house but
Hi, I need help with essay on American Constitution Law 1.1. Paper must be at least 750 words. Please, no plagiarized work!
Three hours later, the officers again sought to enter Miss Mapp’s house but still Miss Mapp refused to let them in. The police officers coercively opened one of the doors and accessed the house.
Miss Mapp insisted that the police officers to produce search warrant. One of the police officers produced a paper claiming to be a search warrant, which Miss Mapp grabbed and concealed it in her bosom. A struggle emerged in which the law enforcers took the paper and in turn, they handcuffed Miss Mapp on the basis that she has been aggressive in rejecting their official rescue of the search warrant. The police officers forcibly took Miss Mapp upstairs where they searched her concealed items, closet, and some suitcases. In addition, they also searched her personal papers and photo album. The police officers moved on to search the kitchen, children bedroom, and dining hall. In the course of the forceful search, the police officers managed to get the obscene materials they wanted (Clancy, 2008).
During the trial of the appellant, no search warrant was produced. The Ohio Supreme court held that it was reasonable that the conviction should be quashed or reversed. This is because the approaches or methods used by police officers to get the evidence were directed in a manner as to offend or insult a sense of justice but the court realized that the evidence had not been obtained from defendant’s person by application of offensive or brutal force against the defendant. In addition, the court asserted that even if the search were done in absence of legal authority or unreasonably by the police officers, it is not stopped from utilizing the unconstitutionally and unreasonably seized evidence at the trial (Clancy, 2008). The fourteenth amendment does not prohibit the use of evidence gathered by unreasonable search and seizure. Therefore, in this case the court held that there was probable and reasonable jurisdiction to try
