0
Still curious? Ask our experts.
Chat with our AI personalities
Lao
Taiga
BlakeAdd your answer:
Earn +20 pts
The Supreme Court case of Mapp v Ohio established the?
exclusionary rule
What was the precedent of mapp v Ohio?
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643 (1961), was a Fourth Amendment case that had its procedural roots in a 1914 US Supreme Court decision protecting defendants' rights against illegal search and seizure in federal cases, but had never been extended to the States.In 1914, in the case Weeks v. US, the Supreme Court held that evidence obtained as the result of an illegal search and seizure could not be used in court. This "exclusionary rule" originally applied only to the federal government, a decision upheld in Wolf v. Colorado, (1949). In a 6-3 decision in Mapp v. Ohio, the Warren Court overruled the Wolfprecedent and incorporated (applied) the Fourth Amendment to the states, holding that the security of "one's privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police . . ." is "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."Justice Tom C. Clark, who wrote the opinion of the Court, quoted from the opinion in Weeks v. US: "If letters and private documents can thus be seized and held and used in evidence against a citizen accused of an offense, the protection of the Fourth Amendment declaring his right to be secure against such searches and seizures is of no value, and, so far as those thus placed are concerned, might as well be stricken from the Constitution."Clark noted that the decision not to incorporate the Fourth Amendment to the states in 1949 was predicated on Colorado's forceful argument that police abuse of power occurred too infrequently to merit federal government intrusion. Clark went on to quote later decisions in state courts that concluded Fourth Amendment abuses were so rampant, no other remedy worked to check unreasonable search and seizure except applying the "Weeks (exclusionary) rule."[The purpose of the rule] "is to deter -- to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty [of privacy] in the only effectively available way -- by removing the incentive to disregard it."In his concluding remarks, Clark acknowledged the potential for criminals to benefit from technical mistakes: "The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence."
What amendment protects you from unreasonable searches?
U.S. Const., Amend. IV:"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."This is effectuated in criminal law and procedure through the Exclusionary Rule.Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Ed., defines the exclusionary rule:"2. Criminal procedure. A rule that excludes or suppresses evidence obtained in violation of an accused person's constitutional rights...."Also, read Wayne R. LaFave and Jerold H. Israel, Criminal Procedure (2d ed. 1992).Also, read Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
How the ruling of Miller v California affected our civil liberties?
The ruling opened the door for anything that held serious political, artistic, literary, orscientific value. In other words, just about anything goes when it comes to the definition of "obscenity." Essentially, someone, somewhere, will find value in the "art" work. Search the web for a view of "PissChrist" - you'll find the most blasphemous, disgusting representation of Jesus ever crafted, and yet, under Miller, this is completely acceptable, though not illegal. A generous debate upon government censorship, and its role within the private sector is certainly in order. Once again, we Americans are faced with rights in conflict - your right to free expression vs my right to be free from your expressions.
Which amendments have been applied to the states through selective incorporation?
The First, Second, Fourth and SixthAmendments have been fully incorporated to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. The Fifth Amendment is almost fully incorporated; the Third and Eighth Amendments are partially incorporated; the Seventh Amendment is unincorporated; the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are not applicable.First Amendment (incorporated)Everson v. Board of Education, 330 US 1 (1947) clarified the Establishment Clause.Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 US 296 (1940) held that the state couldn't impose restrictions on religious grounds.Gitlow v. New York, 268 US 652 (1925) held that the Fourteenth Amendment required the States to adhere to the First Amendment.Near v. Minnesota, 283 US 697 (1931) held that the Minnesota "gag law" violated freedom of the press.De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 US 353 (1937) held that Oregon's criminal syndicalism law was unconstitutional.NAACP v. Alabama, 357 US 449 (1958) Used Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment to establish the right to expressive association, which is not specifically mentioned in the First Amendment.Second Amendment (incorporated)District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US ___ (2008) determined District of Columbia handgun ban was a violation of respondent's Second Amendment right to own and bear arms.McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 US ___ (2010) held self-protection is a fundamental right and incorporated the Second Amendment to the states.Third Amendment (not fully incorporated)2nd Circuit ruling in Engblom v. Carey upheld Third Amendment rights, but decision only applies to Connecticut, New York, and Vermont. Decision only has persuasive authority over remainder of states.Fourth Amendment (incorporated)Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643 (1961) protected individuals against unreasonable search and seizure.Aguilar v. Texas, 378 US 108 (1964) explicated warrant requirements.Fifth Amendment (partially incorporated)Benton v. Maryland, 395 US 784 (1969) disallows trial for the same crime more than once.Malloy v. Hogan, 378 US 1 (1964) upheld personal rights against self-incrimination.Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. City of Chicago, 166 US 226 (1897) upheld Takings Clause, prohibiting exercising eminent domain without fair compensation.Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966) The Miranda warning falls under the Fifth Amendment as a legal precaution, rather than a Constitutional mandate.Sixth Amendment (incorporated)Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 US 213 (1967) upheld the right to a speedy trial.In re Oliver, 333 US 257 (1948) upheld the right to a public trial.Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 US 145 (1968) ruled that trial by jury does not extend to juveniles in state court.In re Oliver, 333 US 257 (1948) upheld the right to notice of accusations.Pointer v. Texas, 380 US 400 (1965) upheld right to confront adversary witnesses.Washington v. Texas, 388 US 14 (1967) held subpoenas have to be issued for witness testimony.Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 US 335 (1963) upheld right to assistance of counsel.Seventh Amendment (not incorporated)Right to jury trial in civil cases not imposed on states.Eighth Amendment (partially incorporated)Murphy v. Hunt, 455 US 478 (1982) petition for certiorari on case of excessive bail, dismissed as moot once defendant was sentenced. No other challenge.Robinson v. California, 370 US 660 (1962) ruled that imprisonment for addiction (only) was cruel and unusual punishment.Baze and Bowling v. Rees, 553 US ___ (2008) held that death by lethal injection did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.For more information, see Related Questions, below.
