In Mapp v. Ohio:

She demanded to see the search warrant. A paper, claimed to be a warrant, was held up by one of the officers. She grabbed the "warrant" and placed it in her bosom. A struggle ensued in which the officers recovered the piece of paper and as a result of which they handcuffed appellant because she had been "belligerent" [p645] in resisting their official rescue of the "warrant" from her person.


If you read on in the opinion, the police were obviously very brutal in their effort to get the "warrant" back, but were they right in doing so? Did Ms. Mapp have a right to hold the search warrant, or only to see it?

1 Answer 1


She's supposed to get her own copy of the warrant. Ohio Criminal Rule 41(D)(1):

Search warrant. The officer taking property under the warrant shall give to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken a copy of the warrant and a receipt for the property taken, or shall leave the copy and receipt at the place from which the property was taken. Similar language is used in the federal rules and probably in most other state

Similar language is used in the federal rules and probably in most other states.

Obviously, it's not ideal to snatch the paperwork out of an officer's hands, but she was entitled to a copy.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.