Mapp Vs. Ohio Earthquake

Like New York, Pennsylvania allowed illegally seized evidence to be used in court before the Mapp v. Ohio case. Arlen Specter, a Philadelphia assistant district attorney, believed the federal exclusionary rule did not affect anything. Saying the Mapp v. Ohio case started him, Spector described the Mapp v. Ohio case as an “earthquake”. Spector did not understand the law because he thought police should already follow the system under the Fourth Amendment. According to Spector, “The Mapp decision has significantly impaired the ability of the police to secure evidence to convict the guilty.... The law abiding citizen who must walk on some Philadelphia streets at two o'clock in the morning would doubtless prefer to be subjected to a search, without

Show More

Related Documents: Mapp Vs. Ohio Earthquake

List Of Every Single Note