Mapp Vs. Ohio Case Study

Words: 137
Pages: 1
Open Document
The final decision of the Mapp v. Ohio case by supreme court overruled Ohio. The supreme court also created a lawful procedure to ensure a person’s property doesn’t get invaded. According to the final decision, a search warrant is required to seize evidence. The warrant must be permitted by a judge before going to a person’s property and the warrant must be shown to the person before going inside the property. The exclusionary rule is taken into effect if a person’s Fourth Amendment rights are ignored. Other defendents can repeatedly use the evidence. Ilegally obtained evidence is only allowed when the police follow the lawful procedure and prove it was inevitiable that the evidence would be found. Also, if it is not the police’s fault that
Show More

Related Documents: Mapp Vs. Ohio Case Study

Mapp Vs Ohio Case Study

Selective Incorporation: Mapp v. Ohio Many people do not know that despite the Bill of Rights, the state governments have limited our natural rights. The Bill of Rights only protects civil liberties from being encroached by national government, not state governments. The Anti-federalists wanted the Bill of Rights because they were nervous about the Constitution enabling “big government” to limit their rights. However, they did not realize that they would need to worry about protecting their rights…

Words 447 - Pages 2

Life: Crime and Criminal Justice Essay

9. Dare (Drug Abuse Resistance Education program) : does it work? NO 10. The Scared Straight program: does it work? No 11. What does it mean to say that a study has not been replicated or can’t be replicated? It is based on one study; it’s not valid. 12. What is a meta-analysis? The use of systematic review of studies. 13. Do most current crime proposal make sense? No; people do not correctly understand the nature of the crime problem in this country and how the criminal justice…

Words 6103 - Pages 25