The appellant, Miss Mapp, was prosecuted and tried before the Ohio Supreme Court of Ohio, where Mr. Justice Clark ruled that she be convicted for knowingly possessing certain lewd and lascivious books, pictures, and photographs in the violation of § 2905.34 of Ohio’s Revised Code (Justia, 2012).
On the 23rd day of May, 1957 three Cleveland police officers went to the appellant’s residence and forcibly searched her home. The police officers said that someone, wanted for questioning in connection to a recent bombing, was hiding and was believed to possess large amount of policy paraphernalia (Justia, 2012).
Upon the forcible and thorough search of the appellant residence, without clearly showing the search warrant, the police officers secured some obscene materials whose possession led to the prosecution, trial and ultimate conviction of the appellant (Justia, 2012).
The conviction of the appellant by the Ohio Supreme Court was informed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the State Crime Act that provides for the admissibility of “evidence obtained by unreasonable search and seizure (Justia, 2012).
The appeal hereby seeks to draw the court’s attention to the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, which the appellant believed to have been overlooked by the Ohio Supreme Court while making previous judgment on the above case.
The said Amendments “apply to all the invasions on the part of the government and its employees of the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life.” The appellant therefore believes that the officers’ actions were “invasion of her indefeasible right of personal security, liberty and private property.” She therefore asks the court to carry out its duty of being “watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizens against any stealthy encroachments thereon (Justia, 2012).”
Did the police officers’ actions while securing the evidences violet Amendment IV, Amendment V, and Amendment XIV Section 1 of the United States Constitution? (Justia, 2012)
After critical consideration of the legal conditions surrounding the case, the court requested the Supreme Court to reexamine the case in accordance with the Amendment IV, Amendment V, and Amendment XIV Section 1 of the United States Constitution (Justia, 2012).
In sending back the case for reconsideration, the court reasons that the provision of Ohio’s § 2905.34 Revised Code is inconsistent with the rights of the free thought and expression that is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment (Justia, 2012).
The case was therefore remanded to the Ohio court to reexamine all the possible provisions applicable to the case (Justia, 2012).