Famous court ase...any law buff should know this?

In the famous Supreme court case Mapp v. Ohio, what was the ruling ratio? In otherwords, what be the number of people who ruled with the majority and what was the number who ruled beside the minority? Any help would be much appreciated o_O
MAPP v. OHIO

No. 236

March 29, 1961, Argued June 19, 1961, Decided
MR. JUSTICE CLARK deliver the opinion of the Court.

MR. JUSTICE BLACK concurring in a separate opinion.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS concurring within a separate opinion.

Memorandum of MR. JUSTICE STEWART.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, whom MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER and MR. JUSTICE WHITTAKER join, dissenting.

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.

All evidence obtained by search and seizures in violation of the Federal Constitution is inadmissible surrounded by a criminal trial in a state court. Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, overruled insofar as it holds to the contrary. Pp. 643-660.

A. L. Kearns argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Walter L. Greene.

Gertrude Bauer Mahon argued the exact for appellee. With her on the brief was John T. Corrigan.

Bernard A. Berkman argued the cause for the American Civil Liberties Union et al., as amici curiae, urging reversal. With him on the brief was Rowland Watts.

MR. JUSTICE CLARK deliver the opinion of the Court.

Appellant stands convicted of knowingly having have in her possession and under her control certain lewd and lascivious books, pictures, and photographs surrounded by violation of ยง 2905.34 of Ohio's Revised Code. 1 As officially stated in the syllabus to its inference, the Supreme Court of Ohio found that her conviction was valid though "based primarily upon the introduction in evidence of lewd and lascivious books and pictures unlawfully seized during an unlawful hunt of defendant's home . . . ." 170 Ohio St. 427-428, 166 N. E. 2d 387, 388.

On May 23, 1957, three Cleveland police officers arrived at appellant's residence in that city pursuant to information that "a person [was] hiding out within the home, who was wanted for questioning within connection with a recent bombing, and that there be a large amount of policy paraphernalia being hidden within the home." Miss Mapp and her daughter by a former marriage lived on the top floor of the two-family dwelling. Upon their arrival at that house, the officers knocked on the door and demanded entrance but appellant, after telephone her attorney, refused to admit them without a survey warrant. They advised their headquarters of the situation and undertook a surveillance of the house.

The officers again sought entrance some three hours latter when four or more additional officers arrived on the scene. When Miss Mapp did not come to the door immediately, at least possible one of the several doors to the house was forcibly opened 2 and the policemen gained pass. Meanwhile Miss Mapp's attorney arrived, but the officers, having secured their own entry, and continuing in their breaking the rules of the law, would permit him neither to see Miss Mapp nor to enter the house. It appears that Miss Mapp was in the middle down the stairs from the upper floor to the front door when the officers, in this highhanded manner, broke into the lecture hall. She demanded to see the search warrant. A paper, claimed to be a warrant, was held up by one of the officer. She grabbed the "warrant" and placed it in her bosom. A struggle ensued within which the officers recovered the piece of paper and as a result of which they handcuffed appellant because she have been "belligerent" in resisting their official rescue of the "warrant" from her individual. Running roughshod over appellant, a policeman "grabbed" her, "twisted [her] hand," and she "yelled [and] pleaded with him" because "it be hurting." Appellant, in handcuffs, was after forcibly taken upstairs to her bedroom where the officers searched a dresser, a chest of drawers, a closet and some suitcases. They also looked into a photo album and through personal papers belonging to the appellant. The rummage spread to the rest of the second floor including the child's bedroom, the living room, the kitchen and a dinette. The basement of the building and a trunk found therein were also searched. The obscene materials for possession of which she be ultimately convicted were discovered in the course of that widespread survey.

At the trial no search warrant was produced by the prosecution, nor was the flop to produce one explained or accounted for. At best, "There is, in the record, considerable doubt as to whether there ever be any warrant for the search of defendant's home." 170 Ohio St., at 430, 166 N. E. 2d, at 389. The Ohio Supreme Court believed a "reasonable argument" could be made that the conviction should be reversed "because the 'methods' employed to obtain the [evidence] . . . be such as to 'offend "a sense of justice,"'" but the court found determinative the fact that the evidence had not be taken "from defendant's person by the use of brutal or offensive physical force against defendant." 170 Ohio St., at 431, 166 N. E. 2d, at 389-390.

The State says that even if the look into were made without authority, or otherwise unreasonably, it is not prevented from using the unconstitutionally seized evidence at trial, citing Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), in which this Court did indeed hold "that surrounded by a prosecution in a State court for a State crime the Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable flush and seizure." At p. 33. On this appeal, of which we have noted probable jurisdiction, 364 U.S. 868, it is urged once again that we review that holding. 3

I.

Seventy-five years ago, in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630 (1886), considering the Fourth 4 and Fifth Amendments as running "almost into respectively other" 5 on the facts before it, this Court held that the doctrines of those Amendments

"apply to all invasions on the part of the management and its employes of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life. It is not the breaking of his doors, and the rummaging of his drawers, that constitutes the essence of the offence; but it is the invasion of his indefeasible right of personal payment, personal liberty and private property . . . . Breaking into a house and opening boxes and drawers are circumstances of aggravation; but any forcible and compulsory extortion of a man's own testimony or of his private papers to be used as evidence to convict him of crime or to forfeit his produce, is within the condemnation . . . [of those Amendments]."

The Court noted that

"constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be to all comers construed. . . . It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon." At p. 635.

In this jealous regard for maintain the integrity of individual rights, the Court gave life to Madison's prediction that "independent tribunals of justice . . . will be with ease led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the Constitution by the declaration of rights." I Annals of Cong. 439 (1789). Concluding, the Court specifically referred to the use of the evidence within seized as "unconstitutional." At p. 638.

Less than 30 years after Boyd, this Court, in Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914), stated that

"the Fourth Amendment . . . put the courts of the United States and Federal officials, in the exercise of their power and authority, lower than limitations and restraints [and] . . . forever secure[d] the people, their persons, houses, papers and effects against all unreasonable search and seizures under the guise of law . . . and the duty of giving to it force and effect is compulsory upon all entrusted under our Federal system with the enforcement of the law." At pp. 391-392.

Specifically dealing with the use of the evidence unconstitutionally seized, the Court concluded:

"If letters and private documents can thus be seized and held and used in evidence against a citizen accuse of an offense, the protection of the Fourth Amendment declaring his right to be secure against such searches and seizure is of no value, and, so far as those thus placed are concerned, might as well be stricken from the Constitution. The efforts of the courts and their official to bring the guilty to punishment, praiseworthy as they are, are not to be aided by the sacrifice of those great principles established by years of endeavor and suffering which have resulted in their embodiment surrounded by the fundamental law of the land." At p. 393.

Finally, the Court in that satchel clearly stated that use of the seized evidence involved "a denial of the constitutional rights of the accused." At p. 398. Thus, in the year 1914, in the Weeks suitcase, this Court "for the first time" held that "in a federal prosecution the Fourth Amendment barred the use of evidence secured through an illegal turn out and seizure." Wolf v. Colorado, supra, at 28. This Court has ever since required of federal law officer a strict adherence to that command which this Court has held to be a clear, specific, and constitutionally required -- even if judicially implied -- deterrent safeguard without insistence upon which the Fourth Amendment would have be reduced to "a form of words." Holmes, J., Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 392 (1920). It meant, quite simply, that "conviction by means of unlawful seizure and enforced confessions . . . should find no sanction in the judgments of the courts . . . ," Weeks v. United States, supra, at 392, and that such evidence "shall not be used at all." Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, supra, at 392.

There are surrounded by the cases of this Court some passing references to the Weeks rule as being one of evidence. But the plain and unequivocal langu
So you arent a law buff then? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapp_v._Ohi...

The footnotes should contain the legal citation to the bag, which will show which justices joined in which opinion.
Ruling ratios are not important. What does thing are the holdings.

Poor law students are already snowed under with reading lacking their being required to memorize how many voted this way or that. They DO own to know what the court decided. But whether the vote was 6-3, 7-2, 9-0, 8-1 - it's all like.