# data[].attributes.body
1. Should the supreme court rule in favor of the Ohio state police in Mapp v. Ohio.
2. Why did the supreme court bother to change the law made by Arizona in Arizona v. United States.
3. Why do you think the state judge in Gideon v. Wainwright denied Gideon an attorny.

# data[].attributes.body
Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304, was a landmark United States Supreme Court case decided on March 20, 1816. It was the first case to assert ultimate Supreme Court authority over state courts in civil matters of federal law. The court ruled in favor of the federal government. the Virginia state court decided that the U.S. Supreme Court did not have authority over cases originating in state court and the supreme court decided against that.

# data[].attributes.body
Arizona v. United States, was a United States Supreme Court case involving Arizona's S.B. 1070, a state law intended to increase the powers of local law enforcement who wished to enforce federal immigration laws. At issue is whether the law usurps the federal government's authority to regulate immigration laws and enforcement. The Court ruled that a few sections were already covered by federal law, but left other parts of the law intact, including a provision that allowed law enforcement to investigate a person's immigration status.

# data[].attributes.body
While searching Dollree Mapp's house, police officers discovered obscene materials and arrested her. Because the police officers never produced a search warrant, she argued that the materials should be suppressed as the fruits of an illegal search and seizure. The Supreme Court agreed. The state argued that the materials found could be used to convict Dollree Mapp but since the police didn't get a search warrant she was protected by federal law by the fourth amendment.

# data[].attributes.body
Gideon was accused of committing a felony. Being poor, he petitioned the judge to provide him with an attorney free of charge. The judge denied his request. The Supreme Court ruled for Gideon, saying that the Sixth Amendment requires  criminal defendants to be provided an attorney free of charge. This was a case of state courts going against the constitution therefore involving the supreme court.

# data[].attributes.body
1. No they shouldn't. It would gave the police too much power, and there would be more dirty cops.
2. They bothered to change it so they wouldn't have as much power over their border.
3. I think he may have denied him an attorney because he had committed a crime that made him mad.