Wolf v. Colorado
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Wolf_v._Colorado an entity of type: Thing
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. In Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914), the Court held that as a matter of judicial implication the exclusionary rule was enforceable in federal courts but not derived from the explicit requirements of the Fourth Amendment. The Wolf Court decided not to incorporate the exclusionary rule as part of the Fourteenth Amendment in large part because the states which had rejected the Weeks Doctrine (the exclusionary rule) had not left the right to privacy without other means of pro
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Wolf v. Colorado
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Julius A. Wolf v. State of Colorado
xsd:integer
1577057
xsd:integer
1122215941
rdf:langString
None
rdf:langString
Douglas
rdf:langString
Murphy
rdf:langString
Rutledge
rdf:langString
Murphy
rdf:langString
Rutledge
rdf:langString
Vinson, Reed, Jackson, Burton
xsd:integer
69
<second>
17280.0
xsd:integer
25
xsd:integer
338
xsd:gMonthDay
--10-19
xsd:integer
1948
rdf:langString
Wolf v. Colorado,
xsd:gMonthDay
--06-27
xsd:integer
1949
rdf:langString
Julius A. Wolf v. State of Colorado
rdf:langString
The Fourteenth Amendment does not require that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment be excluded from use by the states in criminal prosecutions.
rdf:langString
Wolf v. Colorado
rdf:langString
Frankfurter
rdf:langString
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. In Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914), the Court held that as a matter of judicial implication the exclusionary rule was enforceable in federal courts but not derived from the explicit requirements of the Fourth Amendment. The Wolf Court decided not to incorporate the exclusionary rule as part of the Fourteenth Amendment in large part because the states which had rejected the Weeks Doctrine (the exclusionary rule) had not left the right to privacy without other means of protection (i.e. the States had their own rules to deter police officers from conducting warrantless and unreasonable searches and seizures). However, because most of the states' rules proved to be ineffective in deterrence, the Court overruled Wolf in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). That landmark case made history as the exclusionary rule enforceable against the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the same extent that it applied against the federal government.
rdf:langString
Black
rdf:langString
Mapp v. Ohio,
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
14640