Mapp v. Ohio Script
JUDGE (J. White): The court would like to recognize the case of Ms. Dollree Mapp versus the state of Ohio. Will the prosecution please present their case?
PROSECUTION (Ohio): I am a police officer. It is my job to find wrong-doers and law-breakers and teach them the ways of the law. I speak for my fellow officers as well as myself while I give my testimony. Ms. Dollree Mapp was suspected to be harboring a suspected bombing fugitive. My fellow police officers and I did not see the need to get a search warrant to enter Ms. Mapp’s house. We decided time was of the essence, since there was a possibility that there was a bomber in our city. We were doing what we thought was best. It is our job, as officers, to look out for others, and protect them, to call out people on their wrong and to keep our city safe. It is not our fault that the criminal had committed other crimes and we discovered them. It is against Ohio law to possess pornographic material, and upon searching for the bombing fugitive, we found it. We are not wrong for cleaning up the city of this filth. It is now in your hands to continue our efforts to keep our people safe.
JUDGE: Is that all?
PROSECUTION: Yes, your honor.
JUDGE: Thank you. The defense may present their case.
DEFENSE (Mapp): I would like to take this time to defend myself and remind the prosecution of the rights I am entitled to as an American citizen. I, Dollree Mapp, have been arrested under unjust terms. Because of the exclusionary rule, the prosecution had no right to come into my house and arrest me for something that had nothing to do with the original intent of the search. It is my understanding that evidence gathered illegally, cannot be used in court. Seeing how, the reason I’m being tried has nothing to do with the police officers’ reasoning for searching my house. I am protected by the Fourth Amendment. An officer cannot search my house without a warrant, and an officer can’t gather evidence against me for violating a different law than the warrant states. And they certainly cannot force their way into my house without a valid reason. I doubt they could show you a copy of the supposed search warrant if you asked for it, your honor. Thank you for time, I rest my case.
JUDGE: The court recognizes both sides of the case, Mapp v. Ohio. The defendant, Ms. Mapp, is (insert J. White’s ruling here)