Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Mapp v. Ohio

Supreme Court of the United States

March 29, 1961, Argued ; June 19, 1961, Decided

No. 236


 [*643]  [***1083]  [**1685]    MR. JUSTICE CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court.

Appellant stands convicted of knowingly having had in her possession and under her [****2]  control certain lewd and lascivious books, pictures, and photographs in violation of § 2905.34 of Ohio's Revised Code. 1 As officially stated in the syllabus to its opinion, the Supreme Court of Ohio found that her conviction was valid though "based primarily upon the introduction in evidence of lewd and lascivious books and pictures unlawfully seized during an unlawful search of defendant's home . . . ." 170 Ohio St. 427-428, 166 N. E. 2d 387, 388.

 [*644]  On May 23, 1957, three Cleveland police officers arrived at appellant's residence in that city pursuant to information that "a person [was] hiding out in the home, who was [****3]  wanted for questioning in connection with a recent bombing, and that there was a large amount of policy paraphernalia being hidden in the home." Miss Mapp and her daughter by a former marriage lived on the top floor of the two-family dwelling. Upon their arrival at that house, the officers knocked on the door and demanded entrance but appellant, after telephoning her attorney, refused to admit them without a search warrant. They advised their headquarters  [***1084]  of the situation and undertook a surveillance of the house.

The officers again sought entrance some three hours later when four or more additional officers arrived on the  [**1686]  scene. When Miss Mapp did not come to the door immediately, at least one of the several doors to the house was forcibly opened 2 and the policemen gained admittance. Meanwhile Miss Mapp's attorney arrived, but the officers, having secured their own entry, and continuing in their defiance of the law, would permit him neither to see Miss Mapp nor to enter the house. It appears that Miss Mapp was halfway down the stairs from the upper floor to the front door when the officers, in this highhanded manner, broke into the hall. She demanded [****4]  to see the search warrant. A paper, claimed to be a warrant, was held up by one of the officers. She grabbed the "warrant" and placed it in her bosom. A struggle ensued in which the officers recovered the piece of paper and as a result of which they handcuffed appellant because she had been "belligerent"  [*645]  in resisting their official rescue of the "warrant" from her person. Running roughshod over appellant, a policeman "grabbed" her, "twisted [her] hand," and she "yelled [and] pleaded with him" because "it was hurting." Appellant, in handcuffs, was then forcibly taken upstairs to her bedroom where the officers searched a dresser, a chest of drawers, a closet and some suitcases. They also looked into a photo album and through personal papers belonging to the appellant. The search spread to the rest of the second floor including the child's bedroom, the living room, the kitchen and a dinette. The basement of the building and a trunk found therein were also searched. The obscene materials for possession of which she was ultimately convicted were discovered in the course of that widespread search.

 [****5]  At the trial no search warrant was produced by the prosecution, nor was the failure to produce one explained or accounted for. At best, "There is, in the record, considerable doubt as to whether there ever was any warrant for the search of defendant's home." 170 Ohio St., at 430, 166 N. E. 2d, at 389. The Ohio Supreme Court believed a "reasonable argument" could be made that the conviction should be reversed "because the 'methods' employed to obtain the [evidence] . . . were such as to 'offend "a sense of justice,"'" but the court found determinative the fact that the evidence had not been taken "from defendant's person by the use of brutal or offensive physical force against defendant." 170 Ohio St., at 431, 166 N. E. 2d, at 389-390.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

367 U.S. 643 *; 81 S. Ct. 1684 **; 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 ***; 1961 U.S. LEXIS 812 ****; 84 A.L.R.2d 933; 86 Ohio L. Abs. 513; 16 Ohio Op. 2d 384



Disposition:  170 Ohio St. 427, 166 N. E. 2d 387, reversed.


exclusionary rule, the Fourth Amendment, privacy, seized, cases, convicted, door, state court, due process clause, search and seizure, of the Fourth Amendment, courts, rights, unreasonable search and seizure, federal court, the Fourteenth Amendment, use of evidence, confession, overruling, questions, seizure, constitutional right, right to privacy, search warrant, papers, unconstitutionally, obscene, dissenting opinion, federal official, law enforcement

Constitutional Law, Fundamental Rights, Procedural Due Process, Scope of Protection, Search & Seizure, Probable Cause, Criminal Law & Procedure, Search Warrants, Probable Cause, General Overview, Affirmations & Oaths, Exclusionary Rule, Exclusionary Rule, Governments, Federal Government, Employees & Officials, Substantive Due Process, Privacy