When.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Mapp v. Ohio - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapp_v._Ohio

    Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled that the exclusionary rule, which prevents a prosecutor from using evidence that was obtained by violating the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, applies to states as well as the federal government.

  3. Wolf v. Colorado - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_v._Colorado

    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.

  4. Exclusionary rule - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule

    The exclusionary rule is grounded in the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights, and it is intended to protect citizens from illegal searches and seizures. [2] The exclusionary rule is also designed to provide a remedy and disincentive for criminal prosecution from prosecutors and police who illegally gather evidence in violation of the Fifth ...

  5. United States v. Leon - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Leon

    The exclusionary rule was part and parcel of the Fourth Amendment’s limitation upon governmental encroachment of individual privacy. The Court’s only support for its decision is that even though the costs of exclusion are not very substantial, the potential deterrent effect in these circumstances is so marginal that exclusion cannot be ...

  6. Suppression of evidence - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_evidence

    In the United States, the motion to suppress stems from the exclusionary rule.As the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Simmons v. United States: "In order to effectuate the Fourth Amendment's guarantee of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, this Court long ago conferred upon defendants in federal prosecutions the right, upon motion and proof, to have excluded from trial evidence which ...

  7. 120 new charges for Dayton man accused of printing child porn ...

    www.aol.com/news/120-charges-dayton-man-accused...

    Jun. 17—A Dayton man accused of printing explicit images of girls in Oakwood's Wright Memorial Library was indicted Friday on 120 additional charges for creating and possessing child pornography.

  8. Former Shawnee cop pleads to obstructing justice - AOL

    www.aol.com/former-shawnee-cop-pleads...

    Mar. 11—LIMA — A former Shawnee Township detective and one-time school resource officer at Apollo Career Center on Monday pleaded guilty to a Bill of Information charge of obstructing justice ...

  9. Arizona v. Evans - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Evans

    Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court instituted an exclusionary rule exception allowing evidence obtained through a warrantless search to be valid when a police record erroneously indicates the existence of an outstanding warrant due to negligent conduct of a Clerk of Court.