The United States Supreme Court announced their decision on June 19, 1961. The Supreme Court ruled six to three in favor of Mapp, the Court considered the search a violation of the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Chief Justice Warren and Justices Clark, Black, Douglas, Brennan and Stewart agreed the police abused their power against Mapp’s will. Moreover, the Supreme Court applied the exclusionary rule to the case, which means evidence obtained illegally can’t be used in court. The Constitution stated the police need a warrant in order to search a person’s house. Therefore, any evidence obtained without a search warrant isn’t admissible. To emphasize, The Fourth Amendment was created to take care of the people from thoughtless searches
…show more content…
Ohio impacted the United States greatly ranging from socially to politically. The Supreme Court landmark case introduced a new rule: the exclusionary rule. This new rule monitored the type of evidence acceptable in court. While the exclusionary rule was introduced, the Court and police found out it was harder to prosecute criminals, since they would argue their Fourth Amendment was infringed upon during the warrantless search. Upon realization, the Court allowed for the police to search a person’s house with “reasonable suspicion” and “probable cause”. If a police officer suspected a criminal of violating the law, the officer had the right to search the suspect without any warrant. Moreover, Mapp v. Ohio limited what police can do to a citizen. For example, a police can’t search another person without any “reasonable suspicion” or “probable cause”. Furthermore, Chief Justice Warren introduced a new rule: inevitable discovery rule. This new rule states, “that if the evidence would have been eventually found, then it is allowed in court” (https://goo.gl/Hpk1Xt). This means, if any hidden evidence that would eventually be uncovered, the evidence is permissible in court.
In conclusion, Mapp v. Ohio sparked many new ideas and set a precedent for future cases. Mapp v. Ohio impacted the type of evidence allowed in court. The Supreme Court officially ruled any warrantless evidence seized during a search wasn’t considered as evidence. The exclusionary rule was introduced into the Supreme Court and the State’s Court as a result of Mapp v. Ohio, which changed the ruling of the Supreme Court/ their decision. Overall, Mapp v. Ohio had the three core values; life, liberty and the pursuit of
Ohio impacted the United States greatly ranging from socially to politically. The Supreme Court landmark case introduced a new rule: the exclusionary rule. This new rule monitored the type of evidence acceptable in court. While the exclusionary rule was introduced, the Court and police found out it was harder to prosecute criminals, since they would argue their Fourth Amendment was infringed upon during the warrantless search. Upon realization, the Court allowed for the police to search a person’s house with “reasonable suspicion” and “probable cause”. If a police officer suspected a criminal of violating the law, the officer had the right to search the suspect without any warrant. Moreover, Mapp v. Ohio limited what police can do to a citizen. For example, a police can’t search another person without any “reasonable suspicion” or “probable cause”. Furthermore, Chief Justice Warren introduced a new rule: inevitable discovery rule. This new rule states, “that if the evidence would have been eventually found, then it is allowed in court” (https://goo.gl/Hpk1Xt). This means, if any hidden evidence that would eventually be uncovered, the evidence is permissible in court.
In conclusion, Mapp v. Ohio sparked many new ideas and set a precedent for future cases. Mapp v. Ohio impacted the type of evidence allowed in court. The Supreme Court officially ruled any warrantless evidence seized during a search wasn’t considered as evidence. The exclusionary rule was introduced into the Supreme Court and the State’s Court as a result of Mapp v. Ohio, which changed the ruling of the Supreme Court/ their decision. Overall, Mapp v. Ohio had the three core values; life, liberty and the pursuit of