In the three cases
One can observe that the appellants had access to controlled substances with knowledge of the content is prohibited. In the case of Miss Mapp and her daughter, they were found having elements that were used in a bombing. However, the means by which the police obtained the evidence is somewhat unscrupulous since no warrant was used even though she had asked for one. The police also harassed her after gaining access to her house when she tried to access the paper the police had come with as a search warrant. As the officer attempted to acquire the permit, a struggle arose, and that’s when her hand was grabbed and twisted her. The materials obtained in her house are not to be admissible in a court of law since her fourth amendment rights were violated.
In the second case
We have Heller a D.C. special policeman who tried to apply for a handgun that he wanted to use at home for his protection. However, the District of Columbia had a law that banned the possession of a rifle not unless you had a one-year license of keeping the handgun. In addition to that exception is that after obtaining the rifle it had to have a trigger lock mechanism of some sort. Heller was denied to possess a rifle, and he went to file a lawsuit against it but was still denied. He, however, went ahead and acquired one while invoking the second amendment that allowed a person to have a rifle for self-defense purposes.
Thirdly is a case that involves two men carter and johns
The two were arrested in regards to having cocaine in their possession. The two had arrived in the apartment solely to package the white powder from a different city. The police had responded to a call where they were alerted of a person who had seen the two from the window packing the substance in sandwich paper bags. The officer, however, had an affidavit that allowed him to search and claim possession of the material they had. When the two were taken to court, they claimed for the fourth amendment to be implemented for their case. In my opinion, it was not right for the police to access their things since they had an affidavit that allowed them to gain access to them.
Rule
Now in our first case where we have Miss Mapp and her daughter, she had access to explosive materials, and the ruling that was made was against her. Some of the criminal procedure issues are the possession of materials that threaten the lives of people and that took the lives of people in the explosion that had happened recently in that area. The other issue in regards to the fourth amendment is the police forcefully violated her rights by collecting the evidence in the house without a search warrant.
In the second case, where we have Heller, tried to have access to a rifle for self-defense purposes but was denied by the court of law. The fourth amendment right to privacy, however, was not violated in this case, but Heller, however, broke the ruling by going ahead and getting himself a rifle yet he was denied by the court and the rifle should be admissible in a court of law.
In Carter and Johns' case, the ruling that was made was lawfully right since they had access to controlled substances. The criminal procedures, in this case, are relevant in that the two knowingly were in possession of controlled substances, and in regards to the fourth amendment, the police officer was right to have access to their room and get access to the white powder that they were packing. The drugs were obtained lawfully and should be admitted in a law court as evidence and are admissible.
In all the three cases, as facts present, the evidence should be admissible in the court of law but not for Miss Mapp. Reason being Miss Mapp's material evidence was unlawfully acquired since she had requested for a search warrant to be provided before the officers in hand gained access to the room, but this was violated. The officers also used force on her to take the false warrant that was presented by the officers at that time. However, for the other cases in regards to drugs and the handgun, the evidence should be admissible in a court of law since the right procedures were used regarding accessing the evidence. The officer in charge had an affidavit that he showed the two drug dealers and their claim to have the fourth amendment to be implemented in their case should not be put into consideration.
Conclusion
In my opinion, all the cases had a fair ruling, and the persons should be held responsible for their actions since they had full knowledge of what they were doing.
Reference
LaFave, W. R. (2004). Search and seizure: a treatise on the Fourth Amendment (Vol. 4). West Group Publishing.
Fagan, J. (2013). The comparative advantage of juvenile versus criminal court sanctions on recidivism among adolescent felony offenders. Law & Policy, 18(1‐2), 77-114.
Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D. C., MacKenzie, D. L., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. D. (2015). Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising. Research in Brief. National Institute of Justice.
Bradley, C. M. (2015). Two models of the Fourth Amendment. Michigan Law Review, 83(6), 1468-1501.
