In Cleveland Ohio on May 23, 1957, Ohio police came across a case that involves the 4th Amendment protection against “unreasonable searches and seizures” and the “nationalization” of the Bill of Rights under the 14th Amendment. Police received information that a suspect of having illegal betting equipment, and a suspect for a bombing case can be located in the house of Dollree Mapp. Three Cleveland police officers went to Dollree’s home and asked for permission to search the home but Mapp refused to let them search without a search warrant. Two police officers left and one remained at her house. Two hours later the two police officers came back with more officers. Waiving a piece of paper around and broke down Mapps door and Mapp asked to see the so called “warrant” and took it from the officer and put it in her dress Police handcuffed Mapp for being “belligerent.” While searching the home police did not find what they were looking for but found pornographic items in a suite case located by the bed. Mapp claimed the items in the suite case did not belong to her. Mapp was prosecuted and found guilty and sentenced for possession of pornographic material, but there was no search warrant served in court as evidence for Mapps trial. This case was very significant for many it shows that we as humans have rights The United States Supreme Court decided evidence that is obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment which protects against “Unreasonable searches and seizures” is not allowed in criminal prosecutions in federal, and state courts. Its signicance hopefully teaches cops to think again before the just start going through someone stuff and do it the legal way.
The next case involving Mildred Loving a black woman, and Richard Loving a coccasion man, who had been sentenced to a year in the state of Virginia for marrying each other out of state and coming back into the state of Virginia. At the time it was a felony for a white person to intermarry with a black person or for a black to marry a white. Police officers obtained the two newlyweds marriage certificate as evidence. Spent a year and jail and got realeased and moved to Washington D.C. The two took the case to Supreme Court and found that the law was a violation of equal protection clause and to the due process of the fourteenth amendment. So what’s the issue today? State laws that outlaw interracial marriage violate the equal protection clause. So today its fair you should be able to love who you love not based off of what race one is. Holder V. Humanitarian law