Cleveland police had received information that a person wanted for questioning about a recent bombing was hiding in a particular two-family dwelling. There was said to be a large quantity of illegal lottery materials hidden in the home. Upon arrival, three officers knocked on the door and demanded entrance. Mapp, who lived on the top floor with her daughter, telephoned her attorney and then refused to admit the officers without a search warrant. Three hours later, reinforced by additional officers, the police returned. When Mapp did not answer immediately, they tried to kick in the door, then broke its glass pane, reached in, unlocked it, and entered. Meanwhile Mapp’s attorney had arrived, but the officers would not let him see his client or enter the house. Mapp demanded to see a search warrant. When an officer held up a paper claiming it to be a warrant, Mapp grabbed the paper and placed it in her bosom. A struggle ensued during which the officer recovered the paper. Mapp was handcuffed for resisting the officer. The entire house was searched, but all that was found were certain allegedly “lewd and lascivious books and pictures.” Mapp was convicted of knowingly having them in her possession. At the trial, no search warrant was produced nor was the failure to produce one explained. Mapp appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court for a reversal of her conviction because it was based on a search that was illegal under the U. S. Constitution. Was the evidence for conviction obtained in violation of the U. S. Constitution? If so, was it admissible in the trial against the defendant Mapp? (Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643)