Citation network
Mapp Vs. Ohio
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 19, 1961
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Distinguished
-
U.S. 643 (1961) U.S. Supreme Court Mapp v. OhioSearch
-
U.S. 643 (1961) Mapp v. OhioSearch
-
and seizures in violation of the Federal Constitution is inadmissible in a criminal trial in a state court. Wolf v. ColoradoSearch
-
or otherwise unreasonably, it is not prevented from using the unconstitutionally seized evidence at trial, citing Wolf v. ColoradoSearch
-
I Seventy-five years ago, in Boyd v. UnitedSearch
-
At p. 638. Less than 30 years after Boyd, this Court, in Weeks v. UnitedSearch
-
Holmes, J., Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Weeks v. UnitedSearch
-
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Wolf -- to the effect that the Weeks rule is of constitutional origin, remains entirely undisturbed. In Byars v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
At pp. 273 U. S. 29 -30 (emphasis added). The Court, in Olmstead v. UnitedSearch
-
At p. 277 U. S. 462 . In McNabb v. UnitedSearch
-
of which is evidence obtained in disregard of liberties deemed fundamental by the Constitution, cannot stand. Boyd v. UnitedSearch
-
Weeks v. UnitedSearch
-
At pp. 318 U. S. 340 -341. II In 1949, 35 years after Weeks was announced, this Court, in Wolf v. ColoradoSearch
-
Palko v. ConnecticutSearch
-
own legislative or judicial decision, have wholly or partly adopted or adhered to the Weeks rule. See Elkins v. UnitedSearch
-
People v. CahanSearch
-
of other remedies has, moreover, been Page 367 U. S. 653 recognized by this Court since Wolf. See Irvine v. CaliforniaSearch
-
of People v. DeforeSearch
-
which allowed federal judicial use of evidence seized in violation of the Constitution by state agents, Elkins v. UnitedSearch
-
unlawfully searched, Jones v. UnitedSearch
-
finally, the formulation of a method to prevent state use of evidence unconstitutionally seized by federal agents, Rea v. UnitedSearch
-
Ibid. And only last Term, after again carefully reexamining the Wolf doctrine in Elkins v. UnitedSearch
-
Elkins v. UnitedSearch
-
by use of a coerced confession, however logically relevant it be, and without regard to its reliability. Rogers v. RichmondSearch
-
Bram v. UnitedSearch
-
Feldman v. UnitedSearch
-
that together they assure in either sphere is that no man is to be convicted on unconstitutional evidence. Cf. Rochin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 165 , 342 U. S. 173 (1952). V MoreoverSearch
-
U.S. at 364 U. S. 221 . Such a conflict, hereafter needless, arose this very Term in Wilson v. SchnettlerSearch
-
Miller v. UnitedSearch
-
whose results are equally tainted. Byars v. UnitedSearch
-
Lustig v. UnitedSearch
-
People v. DeforeSearch
-
or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence. As Mr. Justice Brandeis, dissenting, said in Olmstead v. UnitedSearch
-
to the contrary was not wanting. Elkins v. UnitedSearch
-
embodied in these two Amendments had been noted at least as early as 1765 by Lord Camden, on whose opinion in Entick v. CarringtonSearch
-
National Safe Deposit Co. v. SteadSearch
-
U. S. 58 (1914), and Adams v. NewSearch
-
Waley v. JohnstonSearch
-
U. S. 101 , 316 U. S. 104 , and Chambers v. FloridaSearch
-
U. S. 227 , 309 U. S. 236 , with Weeks v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 232 U. S. 383 , and Wolf v. ColoradoSearch
-
class of state convictions possibly affected by this decision is of relatively narrow compass when compared with Burns v. OhioSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial