Mapp V.Ohio in 1961 this case was brought to the US. Supreme Court. This Case took place in Cleveland Ohio when several police officers forces their way into map house without a search warrant. This case changed the system by forming the exclusionary rule. The police suspected that Mapp was harboring a bomber and demanded entry into her house. The police officers went to her house ask for permission to enter, she said no she wanted to see a search warrant. She also called her lawyer and still refuses
Words: 598 - Pages: 3
643 (1961) was a very important case and turning point in our nation's history. It changed our legal system by extending the evidence exclusionary rule that was originally decided in Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914). It also marked the final incorporation of the fourth amendment into the due process clause of the fourteenth. The exclusionary rule was created in Weeks which prevented the federal government from using evidence that is found during an illegal search without a warrant
Words: 1696 - Pages: 7
What is the Exclusionary Rule and what is an example? What are the expectations of the rule? How does the Exclusionary Rule apply to criminal procedure? Compare and contrast the criteria (including rationale) on which the Exclusionary Rule was based. Should the rule be abolished? Are there better alternative remedies to the rule and if so, what are they? The exclusionary rule essentially excludes evidence illegally obtained or in evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment (Lippman
Words: 311 - Pages: 2
Exclusionary Rule The exclusionary rule is a rule that is used in the United States, which is stating the evidence that is illegally taken by police, and cannot be used in criminal trials. The rule is to protect the constitutional right. In the Fifth Amendment the exclusionary rule states that no one shall be made in a criminal trial case to be a witness against themselves, and that nobody shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without
Words: 1290 - Pages: 6
property and that one was denied. In the end of this case the court unanimously ruled that the seizure of property from a private home without a warrant was indeed a violation of the Fourth Amendment. This was also the case that created the “exclusionary rule”. This means that any evidence that is gained in violation of the Fourth Amendment in not admissible in court at trial. The next case is Silverthorne Lumber Company, Inc., ET AL v. United States. This was a US Supreme court
Words: 1077 - Pages: 5
Intellectual Property Law. In State v. Buswell, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the protection of the Fourth Amendment was limited to government action and thus any private searches conducted by private citizens were not covered by the exclusionary rule. Thus, if evidence is seized through a private search, then it can be handed over to the police to be applied in a court of law as evidence for an offense (State v. Buswell, 1990). Handing over the information obtained through the search of Mr
Words: 1396 - Pages: 6
The most important amendment is the fourth amendment because the it says, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” It is basically saying that they wrote this law because tax collectors were abusing their powers
Words: 469 - Pages: 2
a search. The government argued there was no search of a person, house, papers, or effects, so the Fourth Amendment did not apply. 2. Please explain the Exclusionary Rule? How does the case of Mapp v. Ohio (1961) relate to the rule? Exclusionary rule is a rule of evidence that excludes evidence from being admitted in criminal trial. This rule relate to the case Mapp v. Ohio for the first time to protect the rights by the Fourth Amendment as the protection of the rights of the citizens of freedom
Words: 601 - Pages: 3
Legal Question Presented Is the warrantless search constitutional? Short Answer The warrantless search is constitutional. Statement of Facts Kentucky undercover police officers set up a controlled buy of cocaine outside an apartment complex. When an uniformed police moved in on the suspect, the suspect ran to a breezeway of an apartment building. As the officers arrived in the area, they heard a door shut. When the officers banged on the door people and things began moving in the apartment. The
Words: 580 - Pages: 3
Maitri Spence-Sharpe, ADMJ 2 Sec. 8001 Citation: Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) Facts: Three police officers went to Miss Dollree Mapp's home looking for a person wanted for questioning regarding a bombing. They had been informed that the person was hiding in Miss Mapp's house. She did not let them in because her attorney advised her not to unless the officers had a search warrant. The police remained outside doing surveillance until more officers arrived a few hours later. At that point they
Words: 546 - Pages: 3
