Talk:Mapp v. Ohio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Ohio Portal Mapp v. Ohio is part of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to current discussions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Suggested article edit guidelines: To help us prioritise our workload, and in readiness for Wikipedia:1.0, we need to assess our articles for Quality. If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Classification for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Article Classification. After assessing this article's quality, please make sure it to add it to the Lists at Article Classification, following the grading scheme detailed there.

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 Tense and tone I think could use some tweaking 2 Reference 3 Horribly Written 4 "policy paraphernalia" vs. pornographic material 5 Mapp was arrested in 1969 on Drug Charges in New York, and was subsequently convicted

[edit] Tense and tone I think could use some tweaking

The story overall is well told, IMO, but the use of present tense in several places ("Justice Clark defends his decision ...") as well as the ambiguous word "says" (rather than "writes," "argues," etc, detracts from this entry. Awkward, too, that Mapp is called "Ms. Dorlee Mapp" only after being called "Dorlee Mapp" earlier in the article. If anything, I think the references besides the first should probably drop down to simply Mapp.

I've a few things, but not many, which unfortunately leaves the entry perhaps worse for inconsistency. I'll try to get back soon to do more ...

timbo 18:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference

I added a good reference but another reference jumped into my new paragraph and is now in both the References and External Links sections, so if someone could mend that for me Id appreciate it. Mmcknight4 18:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horribly Written

This article is...bad. Although it gets to the point of the story well, it gives almost NO information about the importance of the case, the rationale for overturning Wolf v. Colorado, it doesn't even mention the fourteenth ammendment except in the template side pane! There is nothing about the judge's rationale, the list goes on and one. About the only good thing about the practical content is the use of the term amicus curae! I try and clean it up later, and will be marking this as a bad article (or a slightly lesser offense) after I have created an account and figured out how. -HappyRecusant 07:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I am actually the one who originally wrote this entire article, though I did not have a user account at the time. Surprisingly, almost all of the information that you mentioned was missing was once in this article. Why it was removed I do not know. 8.04 21:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is subject to a great deal of vandalism. My belief is that as it was vandalized repeatedly a lot of the information was lost when the vandalism was removed but the users did not revert back to previous versions. This led to the loss of information about the fourteenth ammendment, Wolf v. Colorado, and the judges' rationale. It's a real shame actually. I still have it on my hardrive and I wonder if I should just put it back on. 8.04 21:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "policy paraphernalia" vs. pornographic material

On August 23, 67.79.170.194 changed the description of the material found in Mapp's house which she was convicted of possessing from "pornographic material" to "policy paraphernalia" which 67 then said was "most likely communist propaganda" and then referred to in the next sentence as 'communist propaganda' with no "most likely" qualifier.

Reading http://laws.findlaw.com/us/367/643.html and http://www.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases/mapp_v_ohio_transcript.htm makes clear that 67's changes are mistaken. It's possible to see how the mistake was made, because the informant who told the police that there was some person connected with the bombing hiding out in the Mapp home did claim that there was "a large amount of policy paraphernalia" there as well. It's unclear just what "policy paraphernalia" in the abstract means, but in the oral arguments it's made clear that this specific paraphernalia was equipment for gambling -- not Communist propaganda. It's also made clear that on the charge of possessing that "policy paraphernalia", Mapp was tried and acquitted.

It was the other charge, the one on which Mapp was tried and convicted, which Mapp appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court and then to the Supreme Court of the United States, which was "knowingly having had in her possession and under her control certain lewd and lascivious books, pictures, and photographs in violation of 2905.34 of Ohio's Revised Code." In other words -- teh pr0nz. -- 192.250.34.161 19:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mapp was arrested in 1969 on Drug Charges in New York, and was subsequently convicted

Is it relevent to include in the article that Mapp, living in the New York City borough of Queens in 1969, was arrested on drug charges (along with co-defendent Alan Lyons) and subsequently convicted (along with Lyons? And the fact that she and Lyons sought a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court for the Eastern District of New York, primarily on the grounds that they claimed that, in certain evidence introduced at their joint trial was the product of an unconstitutional search? (Dollree Mapp and Alan Lyons, Petitioners-Appellants, v. Warden, New York State Correctional Institutution for Women, Bedford Hills, New York, and Warden, Great Meadow Correctional Facility, Comstock, New York, Respondents-Appellees) [1] [2][3] I feel that it's very pertinent. Or perhaps should it be mentioned, along with other things about the life of Dollree Mapp, under an article separate from the Mapp v. Ohio article, entitled "Dollree Mapp"? Anybody want to chime in on this? I feel that it's very important. Slater79 (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)