- Progression of the Case:
- Oral Argument (Streaming Audio)
- Browse all documents, photos & newspaper articles
- Credits and Further Reading
Mapp v. Ohio - 367 U.S. 643 (1961)
Supreme Court of the United States (Case No. 236)
Attorney Kearns appealed the decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio on July 14, 1960, requesting that the Supreme Court of the United States review Mapp's case. In response, Prosecuting Attorney Corrigan and Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Mahon filed a Motion to Dismiss or Affirm and Brief in Support, which tried to dissuade the Court from reviewing Mapp's case. For the first time in the case, Prosecuting Attorney Corrigan and Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Mahon admitted that the police officers did not have a warrant when they searched Mapp's home. The Court granted certiorari and agreed to hear Mapp v. Ohio.
Attorney Kearns filed a Brief of Appellant on the Merits, in which it was argued that: (1) the Ohio anti-obscenity statute violated the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; (2) Mapp's sentence was cruel and unusual punishment, a violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; (3) the police officers' conduct violated the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, relying on Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952); and (4) that State v. Lindway should be overruled, consistent with the majority opinion of the Supreme Court of Ohio. It should be noted that Attorney Kearns did not mention Wolf v. Colorado in his brief to the Court.
Prosecuting Attorney Corrigan and Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Mahon filed a Supplemental Brief of Appellee on the Merits. Although the prosecutors again admitted that the police officers involved did not have a warrant, they argued that the officers did not believe they needed a warrant. The brief also argued that the police did not engage in misconduct during their search, and only handcuffed Mapp to her bed because she struggled while they attempted to conduct their search.
The OCLU, joined by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), filed an Amici Curiae Brief. The OCLU and ACLU focused their arguments on Ohio's anti-obscenity law under sections 2905.34 and 2905.35 of the Ohio Revised Code, asserting that the statue violated (1) the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, (2) individual privacy rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and (3) the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, the OCLU and ACLU requested that the Court reexamine Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949).
Eight months after the appeal was filed, the Court heard oral arguments on March 29, 1960. Attorney Kearns, as well as Attorney Bernard Berkman for the OCLU, argued on Mapp's behalf. Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Mahon argued on behalf of the State of Ohio.
