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.
Gates, before the Supreme Court brought the exclusionary rule for reconsideration. The Supreme Court also considered allowing exceptions for errors made by police in good faith. [49] The Reagan administration also asked Congress to ease the rule. [50] It has been proposed that the exclusionary rule be replaced with restitution to victims of ...
Ohio that the exclusionary rule also applies to state criminal prosecutions under the doctrine of incorporation. In Mapp , the majority gave three rationales for enforcing the exclusionary rule under the Constitution: protecting a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights, promoting judicial integrity, and deterring improper searches and seizures.
The Supreme Court announced its decision on July 5, 1984, with Justice Byron White filing for the 6–3 majority in favor of the United States, with Justice Harry Blackmun writing a concurring opinion. First, the exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct rather than to punish magistrates and judges for their errors.
The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision revolves around the notion that, as the opinion argues, "the exclusionary rule has its limitations." According to the court, the meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like ...
Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court decision that created the modern "independent source doctrine" exception to the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule makes most evidence gathered through violations of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution inadmissible in criminal trials as ...
Washington lawyer Adam Unikowsky, who was a Supreme Court clerk for the late Justice Antonin Scalia, wrote a lengthy analysis last week on how such a claim might fare in the courts. He said judges ...
Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that criminal suspects have a right to counsel during police interrogations under the Sixth Amendment. [1] The case was decided a year after the court had held in Gideon v.