Mapp v. Ohio (1964): Exclusionary Rule and Fourth Amendment Rights
The 1964 Supreme Court decision in Mapp v. Ohio established a significant precedent regarding the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court's reversal of a heroin conviction underscored the necessity of legally valid warrants or exceptions to warrant requirements for police entry and searches. The ruling solidified the application of the exclusionary rule at the state level, barring the admission of illegally obtained evidence in state criminal trials. This landmark case significantly impacted the balance between law enforcement practices and individual constitutional rights, shaping the landscape of criminal procedure.
Mapp v. Ohio (1964): Exclusionary Rule and Fourth Amendment Rights
The 1964 Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio reversed a conviction for heroin possession, establishing a critical precedent for Fourth Amendment protections. The Court found the police entry and search of the defendant's home to be unlawful, lacking the necessary legal warrant or probable cause. This decision significantly strengthened the exclusionary rule, preventing illegally obtained evidence from being admitted in criminal trials. The ruling underscored the importance of judicial oversight in safeguarding individual rights against unreasonable government intrusion. The impact of Mapp v. Ohio continues to shape law enforcement practices and legal proceedings to this day, ensuring adherence to Fourth Amendment guarantees.
The 1964 Case
A 1964 court case overturned a heroin conviction because the police search was illegal. The court decided the police didn't have a good reason to enter and search, violating the suspect's rights.
The Case of the Unlawful Search
In 1964, a court overturned a conviction for having heroin. The police searched a person's home without a good reason, breaking the law and people's rights. The court said this was wrong.