In 1960 Ohio police were searching for a suspect they believed had involvement with a resent bombing. While investigating the case, three police officers went to the residence of Dollree Mapp who they had reason to believe was protecting the fugitive or had information of their whereabouts. When the officers arrived at her home they asked Mapp to open the door and let them come in to search her home. She contacted her attorney at the time and he advised her not to let them in without a warrant. The police, who knowingly did not have legal permission to enter, left the residence. Some hours later they returned and told the woman to again grant them access into her home. This time she did not answer them and after some time one police officer
…show more content…
Mapp v. Ohio set the standard for the exclusionary rule, meaning that the States now too fell under the rule. Police today cannot search or seize any items with a search warrant. Furthermore, because of the case of Katz v. United States, the police are required to demonstrate “probable cause” for any investigative activity that is in violation of a citizen’s expectation of privacy. Today law enforcement still has to be granted a warrant to search through a person’s belongings. Although if a person is openly in violation of the law and the evidence is in plain view, a police officer can perform a search, without a warrant. While people will fight this and do not like this idea, it is still the law and the police will use this ability to obtain the evidence they want. Also a warrantless search is legal when, the suspect has given consent, the police are already in pursuit of the defendant, or the search is incidental to a lawful arrest. In addition, if police are granted a search warrant by the court and they carry out the search only to find out that the warrant itself was not valid through no fault of their own, the items seize can still be used because the police were acting under good faith and are protected under the good faith exception. While the police are still held to the standard of the law and its requirements to perform a lawful search, citizens should still be aware that their privacy is not formally protected under the
Mapp v. Ohio set the standard for the exclusionary rule, meaning that the States now too fell under the rule. Police today cannot search or seize any items with a search warrant. Furthermore, because of the case of Katz v. United States, the police are required to demonstrate “probable cause” for any investigative activity that is in violation of a citizen’s expectation of privacy. Today law enforcement still has to be granted a warrant to search through a person’s belongings. Although if a person is openly in violation of the law and the evidence is in plain view, a police officer can perform a search, without a warrant. While people will fight this and do not like this idea, it is still the law and the police will use this ability to obtain the evidence they want. Also a warrantless search is legal when, the suspect has given consent, the police are already in pursuit of the defendant, or the search is incidental to a lawful arrest. In addition, if police are granted a search warrant by the court and they carry out the search only to find out that the warrant itself was not valid through no fault of their own, the items seize can still be used because the police were acting under good faith and are protected under the good faith exception. While the police are still held to the standard of the law and its requirements to perform a lawful search, citizens should still be aware that their privacy is not formally protected under the