Mapp v. Ohio
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Mapp_v._Ohio an entity of type: Thing
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the exclusionary rule, which prevents prosecutors from using evidence in court that was obtained by violating the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, applies not only to the federal government but also to the U.S. state governments. The Supreme Court accomplished this by use of a principle known as selective incorporation; in Mapp this involved the incorporation of the provisions, as interpreted by the Court, of the Fourth Amendment which is applicable only to actions of the federal government into the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause which is applicable to actions of the states.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Mapp v. Ohio
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Dollree Mapp v. State of Ohio
xsd:integer
352587
xsd:integer
1113833809
rdf:langString
Rehearing denied, .
rdf:langString
Harlan
rdf:langString
Frankfurter, Whittaker
rdf:langString
Warren, Black, Douglas, Brennan
<second>
17280.0
<second>
17280.0
xsd:integer
643
xsd:integer
367
xsd:gMonthDay
--03-29
xsd:integer
1961
rdf:langString
Mapp v. Ohio,
xsd:gMonthDay
--06-19
xsd:integer
1961
rdf:langString
Dollree Mapp v. State of Ohio
rdf:langString
The Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth, excludes unconstitutionally obtained evidence from use in criminal prosecutions. Ohio Supreme Court reversed.
rdf:langString
Mapp v. Ohio
rdf:langString
Clark
rdf:langString
Mapp, 367 U.S. at 657.
rdf:langString
Weeks, 232 U.S. at 391–92.
rdf:langString
[O]ur holding that the exclusionary rule is an essential part of both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments is not only the logical dictate of prior cases, but it also makes very good sense. There is no war between the Constitution and common sense. Presently, a federal prosecutor may make no use of evidence illegally seized, but a State's attorney across the street may, although he supposedly is operating under the enforceable prohibitions of the same Amendment. Thus, the State, by admitting evidence unlawfully seized, serves to encourage disobedience to the Federal Constitution which it is bound to uphold.
rdf:langString
The effect of the Fourth Amendment is to put the courts of the United States and Federal officials, in the exercise of their power and authority, under limitations and restraints as to the exercise of such power and authority ... The tendency of those who execute the criminal laws of the country to obtain conviction by means of unlawful seizures ... should find no sanction in the judgments of the courts, which are charged at all times with the support of the Constitution, and to which people of all conditions have a right to appeal for the maintenance of such rights.
rdf:langString
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the exclusionary rule, which prevents prosecutors from using evidence in court that was obtained by violating the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, applies not only to the federal government but also to the U.S. state governments. The Supreme Court accomplished this by use of a principle known as selective incorporation; in Mapp this involved the incorporation of the provisions, as interpreted by the Court, of the Fourth Amendment which is applicable only to actions of the federal government into the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause which is applicable to actions of the states.
rdf:langString
Douglas
rdf:langString
Black
rdf:langString
Stewart
rdf:langString
Wolf v. Colorado
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
17405
