Uh-oh, it looks like your Internet Explorer is out of date.

For a better shopping experience, please upgrade now.

Mapp v. Ohio: Evidence and Search Warrants

Mapp v. Ohio: Evidence and Search Warrants

by Deborah A. Persico

Editorial Reviews

School Library Journal - School Library Journal
Gr 8 UpThe fourth amendment to the Constitution protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures, while the "exclusionary rule" states that any evidence seized in such an unreasonable search is inadmissible in court. When Dolly Mapp was indicted on pornography charges after police searched her Ohio home with a search warrant that proved to be inadequate, neither protection covered her case because each was applicable only to federal courts. (This case involved city police officers charging a violation of state law in a state court.) As a result, Mapp's lawyers brought her case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the exclusionary rule should cover all courts in order to deter unlawful conduct by the police and to compel respect for the Constitution. Persico documents the arguments before the Court, which, oddly, seemed to focus as much on the pornography charge as on the fact of unlawfully seized evidence. Further, the author discusses the history of the exclusionary rule in later courts as the political balance of the country shifted. Despite successful efforts to explain the terminology, the text unfortunately reads like a legal brief. This series entry, nevertheless, contains information useful for reports and questions for subsequent discussion.Susan F. Marcus, Pollard Middle School, Needham, MA

Product Details

Enslow Publishers, Incorporated
Publication date:
Landmark Supreme Court Cases Series
Product dimensions:
6.29(w) x 9.31(h) x 0.49(d)
Age Range:
11 - 17 Years

Customer Reviews

Average Review:

Post to your social network


Most Helpful Customer Reviews

See all customer reviews