Case Name:
Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (1999)
Facts:
A highway patrol officer stopped a car for having a faulty brake light. The people inside the vehicle were Young (the driver), his girlfriend and another individual. During the questioning, the officer noticed that Young had a hypodermic syringe in his shirt pocket. When asked why he had it, he replied that he used it to take drugs. The other passengers were instructed to get out of the vehicle and one of them gave a fake identification. When searching the vehicle, the officer found a purse in the back seat in which the other individual claimed as their own. The officer found a brown pouch and a black container containing drug paraphernalia and a syringe containing 60 cubic centimeters…show more content… Taking Connelly’s confession and making it admissible in court no way violates that clause.
Case Name:
Mapp v. Ohio, 397 U.S. 643 (1961)
Facts:
Three officers from Cleveland went to a house of someone who was wanted for questioning after a recent bombing. The officers knocked on the door and demanded entrance but the defendant refused to let them in without a warrant. They then took surveillance of the house. Three hours those officers plus four additional officers showed up at the house and when Mapp didn’t come to the door right away the officers forced their way in. When Mapp’s attorney showed up the officers wouldn’t let him inside or talk to Mapp. When asked to see their warrant, she took it and placed it in her bosom. After struggling to get it back, they placed the defendant in handcuffs.
The officers forced her upstairs and went to search a dresser, a closet, some suitcases, etc. The search continued to the second floor which included both the child’s bedroom and the kitchen.
They basically search the entire house and found the items that she was eventually convicted for.
The prosecution failed to come up with a warrant at the
