1. Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
367 U.S. 643

2. Constitutional Issue
The United States Supreme Court agreed that evidence that was gained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, may not be used in state law criminal prosecutions in state courts. Also in federal criminal law prosecutions in federal courts, as the previous law had been. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

3. Parties that were Involved
The parties that were involved in this case were Dollree Mapp who was against the local police department, then the state government, and eventually the federal government.

4. When and Where
The case was argued on March 29, 1961 in the state of Ohio.

5. Events Leading up to Issue
Dollree Mapp, a resident in the state of Ohio, was suspected of having obscene materials in her home. This led to her conviction and an illegal search of her home for a fugitive. Mapp appealed this conviction based on the freedom of expression.

6. Courts that Heard the Case
The Ohio Supreme Court was another court that heard and had a ruling of the case.

7. Historical Context
This case first arose in 1957 when police in Cleveland forcibly entered the home of Dollree Mapp. The officers did a search on who they thought could possibly have been a bombing suspect. Police did not have a warrant, therefore, this was violating the 4th amendment. The evidence they had obtained was gained illegal so it could not be used.

8. Supreme Court's Ruling/Decision
The Supreme Court ruled that the evidence that police had obtained violated the 4th amendment of the US Constitution, which prohibits “unreasonable searches.”

9. Supreme Court's Reasoning
Since the evidence was obtained illegally, it is not allowed to be used against someone in court of law. This is stated by the 4th amendment. If the police do not have a warrant, they are not allowed to go into someone's home and do a search, like they had done to Mapp.

10. Opposing Viewpoints
The police had found certain “lewd and lascivious” books, pictures, and photographs regarding the bombing situation, which had violated Ohio’s revised code, therefore, her conviction had been valid.

11. How We Feel
We believe that her conviction should be valid for the safety of the people. Even though the police did not have a search warrant, they had a good reason to go into Mapp’s house and perform a search. This could have prevented a mass of people from getting injured or killed.

12. Supreme Court Vote in Dissent and Which Justice Wrote the Opinion for Dissent
The supreme Court voted in dissent that evidence that is obtained in violation of the fourth amendment is inadmissible in court. The fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable searches. The court ruled that this was a violation to people's rights and they should not be randomly searched without a warrent, no matter what information they are given. The court ruled in favor of Mapp in a 5-3 decision. Justice Clark wrote applied the exclusion rule to the states. This rule then required courts to exclude criminal trials and evidence that was obtained in the violation of the constitution's ban on the unreasonable searches.

13. Dissenting Opinion and Were there any Current Opinions
Dissenting opinion: The court ruled in favor of Mapp. However, the justice left it up to the states on what their rulings would be. People still could not be tried if police found something in their house without a proper search warrant, if that is not what they are looking for. Current opinions: According to Justice Harlan, this was a first amendment case, not a fourth one. He believed it was wrong to use the exclusionary rule, which was designed for federal criminal process, on the states, which take different responsibility in this area of law. On the other hand Justice Clark and majority of others applied the exclusionary rule to this case. “This rule requires courts to exclude from criminal trials evidence that was obtained in violation of the constitution’s ban on unreasonable searches and arrests.”

14. How are Concurrent Opinions Different and What was the Supreme Court Ruling/Opinion
The concurrent options are different because one Justice opinion said the exclusionary rule was necessary, while the other Justice said that the exclusionary rule was not necessary and should not be included in this case. The justices believed that having to require the states to obey the exclusionary rule had made “no war between the Constitution and common sense. The court ruled in favor of Mapp, 5-3.

15. Significance of other Court Cases, impact, and Why this Case is a "Landmark"
Mapp v. Ohio had to deal with criminal procedure. Other cases involving criminal procedure all have to do with set rules given by the government, which enforce criminal law. Each state has its own type of criminal code. Certain federal crimes have to do with activities extending beyond state boundaries. Such federal rules incorporate all guarantees within the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. If an officer fails to follow proper procedures, the trial court may suppress the evidence obtained in violation of proper procedure or even release the arrested suspect. There was a great impact on every state because of this state. The Supreme Court declared that every state must exclude from criminal trials. This case had affected every US citizen by stating state law enforcement officers couldn't use evidence obtained through illegal searches. Mapp V. Ohio was a landmark because it violated the 4th amendment of the US Constitution, therefore, the evidence could not be used against the suspect.