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. Law of Ohio - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Ohio

    Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure from VernerLegal; Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure from VernerLegal; Ohio Rules of Evidence from VernerLegal; Case law: "Ohio", Caselaw Access Project, Harvard Law School, OCLC 1078785565, Court decisions freely available to the public online, in a consistent format, digitized from the collection of the Harvard Law ...

  4. Learned treatise - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_treatise

    Under the Federal Rules of Evidence 803 (18), either party can introduce a learned treatise as evidence, irrespective of whether it is being used to rebut the opposing party. Such texts are now considered an exception to hearsay, with two limitations: [ 3 ]

  5. Good-faith exception - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good-faith_exception

    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. [4]

  6. Terry v. Ohio - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

    Both men were charged and tried in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas for Cuyahoga County. Terry's lawyer filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the discovered pistol, arguing McFadden's frisk had been a violation of Terry's Fourth Amendment rights and that the pistol should be excluded from evidence under the exclusionary rule. The trial judge ...

  7. DeRolph v. State - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeRolph_v._State

    Represented by Bricker & Eckler LLP, the coalition named the state, the Ohio Board of Education, its superintendent, and the Ohio Department of Education as defendants in the suit, which alleged that the funding system did not meet the constitutional standard for thoroughness or efficiency and presented an exhaustive body of evidence ...

  8. AOL Mail

    mail.aol.com

    Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!

  9. Herring v. United States - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herring_v._United_States

    Ohio (1961), the Supreme Court created the exclusionary rule, which generally operates to suppress – i.e. prevent the introduction at trial of – evidence obtained in violation of Constitutional rights. "Suppression of evidence, however, has always been [the court's] last resort, not [its] first impulse.