About: Mapp v. Ohio

An Entity of Type: unit of work, from Named Graph: http://dbpedia.org, within Data Space: dbpedia.org

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the exclusionary rule, which prevents prosecutors from using evidence in court that was obtained by violating the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, applies not only to the federal government but also to the U.S. state governments. The Supreme Court accomplished this by use of a principle known as selective incorporation; in Mapp this involved the incorporation of the provisions, as interpreted by the Court, of the Fourth Amendment which is applicable only to actions of the federal government into the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause which is applicable to actions of the states.

Property Value
dbo:abstract
  • Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the exclusionary rule, which prevents prosecutors from using evidence in court that was obtained by violating the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, applies not only to the federal government but also to the U.S. state governments. The Supreme Court accomplished this by use of a principle known as selective incorporation; in Mapp this involved the incorporation of the provisions, as interpreted by the Court, of the Fourth Amendment which is applicable only to actions of the federal government into the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause which is applicable to actions of the states. (en)
dbo:thumbnail
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
dbo:wikiPageID
  • 352587 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageLength
  • 17405 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
  • 1113833809 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbp:arguedate
  • 0001-03-29 (xsd:gMonthDay)
dbp:argueyear
  • 1961 (xsd:integer)
dbp:case
  • Mapp v. Ohio, (en)
dbp:concurrence
  • Douglas (en)
  • Black (en)
  • Stewart (en)
dbp:cornell
dbp:decidedate
  • 0001-06-19 (xsd:gMonthDay)
dbp:decideyear
  • 1961 (xsd:integer)
dbp:dissent
  • Harlan (en)
dbp:findlaw
dbp:fullname
  • Dollree Mapp v. State of Ohio (en)
dbp:holding
  • The Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth, excludes unconstitutionally obtained evidence from use in criminal prosecutions. Ohio Supreme Court reversed. (en)
dbp:joindissent
  • Frankfurter, Whittaker (en)
dbp:joinmajority
  • Warren, Black, Douglas, Brennan (en)
dbp:justia
dbp:lawsapplied
dbp:litigants
  • Mapp v. Ohio (en)
dbp:loc
dbp:majority
  • Clark (en)
dbp:overturnedPreviousCase
  • Wolf v. Colorado (en)
dbp:oyez
dbp:parallelcitations
  • 17280.0 (dbd:second)
dbp:prior
  • 17280.0 (dbd:second)
dbp:source
  • Mapp, 367 U.S. at 657. (en)
  • Weeks, 232 U.S. at 391–92. (en)
dbp:subsequent
  • Rehearing denied, . (en)
dbp:text
  • [O]ur holding that the exclusionary rule is an essential part of both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments is not only the logical dictate of prior cases, but it also makes very good sense. There is no war between the Constitution and common sense. Presently, a federal prosecutor may make no use of evidence illegally seized, but a State's attorney across the street may, although he supposedly is operating under the enforceable prohibitions of the same Amendment. Thus, the State, by admitting evidence unlawfully seized, serves to encourage disobedience to the Federal Constitution which it is bound to uphold. (en)
  • The effect of the Fourth Amendment is to put the courts of the United States and Federal officials, in the exercise of their power and authority, under limitations and restraints as to the exercise of such power and authority ... The tendency of those who execute the criminal laws of the country to obtain conviction by means of unlawful seizures ... should find no sanction in the judgments of the courts, which are charged at all times with the support of the Constitution, and to which people of all conditions have a right to appeal for the maintenance of such rights. (en)
dbp:uspage
  • 643 (xsd:integer)
dbp:usvol
  • 367 (xsd:integer)
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dct:subject
rdf:type
rdfs:comment
  • Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the exclusionary rule, which prevents prosecutors from using evidence in court that was obtained by violating the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, applies not only to the federal government but also to the U.S. state governments. The Supreme Court accomplished this by use of a principle known as selective incorporation; in Mapp this involved the incorporation of the provisions, as interpreted by the Court, of the Fourth Amendment which is applicable only to actions of the federal government into the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause which is applicable to actions of the states. (en)
rdfs:label
  • Mapp v. Ohio (en)
rdfs:seeAlso
owl:sameAs
prov:wasDerivedFrom
foaf:depiction
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
foaf:name
  • (en)
  • Dollree Mapp v. State of Ohio (en)
is dbo:knownFor of
is dbo:wikiPageDisambiguates of
is dbo:wikiPageRedirects of
is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of
is foaf:primaryTopic of
Powered by OpenLink Virtuoso    This material is Open Knowledge     W3C Semantic Web Technology     This material is Open Knowledge    Valid XHTML + RDFa
This content was extracted from Wikipedia and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License