Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled that the exclusionary rule, which prevents a prosecutor from using evidence that was obtained by violating the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, applies to states as well as the federal government.
Dollree Mapp (October 30, 1923 – October 31, 2014) was the appellant in the Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio (1961). She argued that her right to privacy in her home, the Fourth Amendment, was violated by police officers who entered her house with what she thought to be a fake search warrant. [1]
It was not until Mapp v. Ohio [18] in 1961 that the exclusionary rule was also held to be binding on the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees due process. Up until Mapp, the exclusionary rule had been rejected by most states. [19] In 2016, Utah v.
Gerrymandering must end in Ohio: Opinion: 77% of Ohioans have no real choice for state lawmakers. We need Issue 1. Future of Ohio Supreme Court up in the air.
He cited Elkins v. United States, in which the Supreme Court ditched the “silver platter doctrine”. This doctrine was an aspect of the exclusionary rule after it was created, but before the landmark case of Mapp v. Ohio, in which illegally seized evidence by a state officer could be used in a federal civil proceeding. [9]
The presidential race has dominated national headlines, but Ohioans have "gerrymandering" on the minds. Nearly 900 people have responded to The Dispatch's nonscientific poll on Ohio Issue 1 ...
Current school board member Mary Wineberg also contributed $150 to Mapp's campaign. The Matriots political action committee contributed $1,300 to Mapp's campaign. The organization's mission is to ...
Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held 6—3 that, while the Fourth Amendment was applicable to the states, the exclusionary rule was not a necessary ingredient of the Fourth Amendment's right against warrantless and unreasonable searches and seizures.