Library
Public
Team Premium
Grades
Kindergarten
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
12th
Higher Ed
Adult Ed
Other
Subjects
ELA
Math
Science
Social Studies
Art
Computer Science
French
German
Music
Physical Education
Spanish
Other
Court Case Mapp v Ohio (HSA Model)
starstarstarstarstarstarstarstarstarstar
by Adam Parry
| 16 Questions
Note from the author:
This is a Document Based Question that is similar in style to the PARCC tests and aligns to the new 2020 Maryland High School Assessment ECR / Cluster Questions in its design.
You need to examine the facts in this court case, including its common law development, making a ruling at the end and explaining your viewpoint.

This structure is similar to the PARCC and the method being adopted for the Government H.S.A. in the future
Background
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures and requires two branches of government to agree in order for search warrants to be issued. But what happens when the police do not act within the law, and conduct searches without a warrant that are in violation of the 4th Amendment?
Source A:
When Mapp v. Ohio reached the Court in 1961, it was not initially seen as a Fourth Amendment case. Dollree
Mapp was convicted under Ohio law for possessing "lewd, salasious, or obscene material." Mapp appealed her conviction. She based her claim on First Amendment grounds, saying that she had a right to possess the materials. When the case reached the Supreme Court, however, the Justices did not address her First Amendment claim. The Court instead overturned her conviction because the evidence against her had been seized without a warrant. ln so ruling, the Court applied the exclusionary rule to the states.
1
1 pt
Which piece of information from Source A supports the following claim: "The court overturned her conviction for being arrested for possession of lewd, salasious, or obscene material"
A. She based her claim on First Amendment grounds, saying that she had a right to possess the materials.
B. Justices did not address her First Amendment claim
C. The evidence against her had been seized without a warrant
D. The exclusionary rule applies to all states
2
1 pt
1. What are the major items that a person has protected against unreasonable government searches and seizures?
2. What conditions must exist for a warrant to be issued by the government to search an individuals property?
3
1 pt
Which analysis of Source B is the MOST accurate?
A. People are protected in all they own from a government intrusion unless there is a warrant and evidence to show the government has a right to search for something illegal
B. People are protected in what they own but only if they are not doing something illegal in the first place
C. People make poor choices lose their rights to be protected from the government
D. People are always protected from the government, especially in their private homes and in their personal actions
4
1 pt
First Paragraph of Document E
1. What types of items were taken in this court case?
2. Why should the conviction be reversed?
5
1 pt
Second Paragraph of Document E
2. What "safeguards" are provided to the people in the 4th Amendment?
6
1 pt
Which piece of information from Source E (Weeks vs United States, 1914 case) supports the claim that the court ruling against Weeks should be reversed? (careful, there is a correct and ALMOST correct answer here)
A. without any search warrant and in violation of the constitutional rights of accused under the Fourth Amendment
B. Fourth Amendment took its origin...to provide for that instrument a Bill of Rights, securing certain rights to the American people
C. to protect the people from unreasonable searches and seizures,
D. they "letters" are used in evidence over his objections, prejudicial error is committed and the judgment [conviction] should be reversed.
7
1 pt
How does Source B corroborate (support) the information in Source E. (Look back at what both are referencing)
A. Weeks was a good person who was mistreated by the government
B. Property that includes personal items, houses, papers, and effects are protected against unreasonable searches and seizures.
C. There was a Bill of Rights that provided people with protection from the government
D. Any person whose rights are violated by the government must be set free at once
8
1 pt
Analysis #1
1. How does the 4th Amendment support the idea of what we have previously covered regarding Zones of Privacy? Explain in 1-2 sentences.
9
1 pt
The previous Weeks vs USA case bared the court from using evidence that was (paragraph 1)
A. collected by state police officers
B. not stored correctly when collected
C. secured through an illegal search
D. was submitted by the person accused of the crime
10
1 pt
The exclusion of evidence (not allowing it to be used) is a remedy (a solution) which directly serves only to protect a person when
A. We all know they are guilty and want to convict them
B. Something incriminating has been found against them
C. They have been falsely accused of doing something
D. The police are targeting the on purpose
11
1 pt
Examine this last portion of document F, why did the Court refuse to apply the exclusionary rule to states?
12
1 pt
In what circumstances would protection to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures NOT exist?
A. If the person was being accused of breaking a national law
B. If the person was being accused of breaking a local law
C. If the person was being accused of breaking an international law
D. If the person was accused of breaking a state law
Mapp v Ohio Court Case Overview:
The Mapp family was found in possession of items that were classified as illegal to possess in the state. When a police officer stumbled upon them without a warrant in the Mapp family possession he arrested those individuals. Previous court rulings gave the state the right to perform this type of search and seizure without a warrant. The Mapp family took the issue through the court system arguing that their rights had been violated.
13
1 pt
The 4th Amendment has been deemed to not work when protecting people from unreasonable searches and seizures by their State government. What Amendment grants the right to privacy under the due process law?
A First
B Third
C Ninth
D Fourteenth
Ruling in favor of Mapp: Majority Opinion
"In extending the substantive protections of due process to all constitutionally unreasonable searches-state or federal-it was logically and constitutionally necessary that the exclusion doctrine - an essential part of the right to privacy-be protected.

[O]ur holding that the exclusionary rule is an essential part of both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments is not only the logical dictate of prior cases, but it also makes very good sense.

When the Fourth Amendment's ban against unreasonable searches and seizures is considered together with the Fifth Amendment's ban against compelled self-incrimination, a constitutional basis emerges which not only justifies but actually requires the exclusionary rule.

Therefore, Mapp is to be set at liberty (free)"
14
1 pt
Explain in 1-2 sentences, why did the Court apply the exclusionary rule to the states?
Dissenting Opinion (Disagreed with the ruling)
Believes that this ruling undermines each State’s authority to be free to determine for themselves how to enforce their laws, and ensure social order in their borders. The dissenting opinion does not believe that States should have to follow the exclusionary rule as designed to stop the Federal (national) government from intruding on your personal lives. The Bill of Rights was designed to stop the Federal Government’s actions, not the state governments’ actions.
15
1 pt
Do you agree or disagree with the dissenting opinion's view of state's rights that the Bill of Rights applies only to the Federal (national) government? Explain why/why not in 2-3 sentences.
16
1 pt
Summary Question: Answer in 7-10 sentences

Develop a thesis to this question
Cite evidence from the sources to support your claim
Use additional details and examples to support your argument

Question:
The exclusionary rule remains controversial. Supporters say it ensures liberty and justice, while critics claim it actually threatens those values. Does the exclusionary rule ensure liberty and justice or does it actually threaten those values by not allowing State governments to protect their citizens?
Add to my formatives list