Did Ms. Mapp have a right to take the search warrant?
<p>In Mapp v. Ohio:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>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.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/367/643" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/367/643</a></p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>She's supposed to get her own copy of the warrant. <a href="http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/LegalResources/Rules/criminal/CriminalProcedure.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ohio Criminal Rule 41(D)(1)</a>: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>Search  warrant.</em>  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</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Similar language is used in the federal rules and probably in most other states.</p>

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

search-and-seizure case-law