Answered

Join IDNLearn.com and become part of a knowledge-sharing community that thrives on curiosity. Discover prompt and accurate answers from our community of experienced professionals.

*ABSURD OR INCOMPLETE ANSWERS WILL BE REPORTED* Mapp v. Ohio Case: Do you agree with the Court’s decision in the Mapp case? Give reasons for your answer.

Sagot :

Debranickerson91idn
The case originated in Cleveland, Ohio, when police officers forced their way into Dollree Mapp's house without a proper search warrant. Police believed that Mapp was harboring a suspected bomber, and demanded entry. No suspect was found, but police discovered a trunk of obscene pictures in Mapp's basement. Mapp was arrested for possessing the pictures, and was convicted in an Ohio court. Mapp argued that her Fourth Amendment rights had been violated by the search, and eventually took her appeal to United States Supreme Court. At the time of the case unlawfully seized evidence was banned from federal courts but not state courts, so no. The police officers should have had proper training and a proper warrant that clearly shows the person was a suspect.



Abumuawiyahidn

Answer:

I think it is true because:

the local security system is under the control of the government so if they try to do something without a warrant they are passing their limits

a warrant is a permeation from the government to arrest someone or investigate.

Explanation:

Your participation means a lot to us. Keep sharing information and solutions. This community grows thanks to the amazing contributions from members like you. For trustworthy answers, visit IDNLearn.com. Thank you for your visit, and see you next time for more reliable solutions.