enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Mapp v. Ohio - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapp_v._Ohio

    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.

  3. List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Warren Court

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States...

    367 U.S. 488 (1961) oaths, religious test, First Amendment Poe v. Ullman: 367 U.S. 497 (1961) ripeness to challenge statute banning contraceptives: Mapp v. Ohio: Criminal procedure: 367 U.S. 643 (1961) search and seizure, exclusionary rule Marcus v. Search Warrant: 367 U.S. 717 (1961) Procedural burden on state in seizure of obscene material ...

  4. Dollree Mapp - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollree_Mapp

    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]

  5. List of landmark court decisions in the United States - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landmark_court...

    Louisiana, 368 U.S. 157 (1961) Peaceful sit-in demonstrators protesting segregationist policies cannot be arrested under a state's "disturbing the peace" laws. Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States , 379 U.S. 241 (1964) The Commerce Clause gives Congress power to force private businesses to abide by Title II of the Civil Rights Act of ...

  6. Exclusionary rule - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule

    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.

  7. Warren Court - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Court

    Warren’s Court ordered lawyers for indigent defendants, in Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), and prevented prosecutors from using evidence seized in illegal searches, in Mapp v. Ohio (1961). The famous case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) summed up Warren's philosophy. [33]

  8. Aguilar–Spinelli test - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aguilar–Spinelli_test

    It was not until Mapp v. Ohio , 367 U.S. 643 (1961), [ 3 ] that the exclusionary rule was held to be binding on the states through the doctrine of selective incorporation.) Subsequently, the defense in many criminal trials attempted to prove that a search warrant was invalid, thus making the search illegal and hence the evidence obtained ...

  9. Supreme Court of Ohio - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Ohio

    State (1997) the Supreme Court of Ohio found that Ohio's method of funding its schools was unconstitutional. The case originated in the Perry County Schools. In Mapp v. Ohio (1961), the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Supreme Court of Ohio, and found that evidence seized unlawfully without a search warrant cannot be used in criminal prosecutions.