Ad
related to: history of the exclusionary rule
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The exclusionary rule does not apply in a civil case, in a grand jury proceeding, or in a parole revocation hearing.. The law in force at the time of the police action, not the time of the attempt to introduce the evidence, controls whether the action is illegal for exclusionary rule purposes.
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.
Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court decision that created the modern "independent source doctrine" exception to the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule makes most evidence gathered through violations of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution inadmissible in criminal trials as ...
The majority reviewed the history of the exclusionary rule established in early 20th-century cases such as Weeks v. United States (1914) and Gouled v. United States , (1921) and applied to state courts in Mapp v.
This precedent later became known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine," [2] and is an extension of the exclusionary rule. Chief Justice Edward Douglass White and Associate Justice Mahlon Pitney dissented without a written opinion.
United States (1914), [2] has been enforced by the exclusionary rule, which excludes most evidence gathered through Fourth Amendment violations from criminal trials. While Wolf v. Colorado (1949) [3] had held the amendment to apply to the states, a process known as incorporation, the exclusionary rule had explicitly not been incorporated by the ...
Ohio that the exclusionary rule also applies to state criminal prosecutions under the doctrine of incorporation. In Mapp, the majority gave three rationales for enforcing the exclusionary rule under the Constitution: protecting a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights, promoting judicial integrity, and deterring improper searches and seizures. [4]
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.