Note: Essay below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files will contain proper formattingExcerpt from Term Paper:
United States applied to state-court proceedings as a result of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court was also asked to determine whether the manner in which such evidence was obtained affected the admissibility of such evidence, or whether an illegal search that did not shock the conscience was somehow better than an illegal search that did not shock the conscience. Finally, the Court was asked to determine whether the anti-obscenity provisions of Ohio. Rev. Code ? 2905.34 violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
G. Decision: The Court reversed and remanded the decision of the Ohio Supreme Court. The Court determined that appellant's conviction was unlawful based on the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment search and seizure issues. The Court held that "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by that same authority, inadmissible in a state court." The Court did not address whether the anti-obscenity provisions of Ohio Rev. Code ? 2905.34 violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
H. Opinion: One of the reasons that the Court found it compelling to require the states to adopt the exclusionary rule developed in Weeks is that half of the states had already adopted such a rule, finding that other remedies deprived defendants of the essential protections of the Fourth Amendment. In Elkins v. United States, the Court had previously determined that all evidence obtained as the result of an unconstitutional search or seizure was inadmissible in Federal court, which helped delineate the breadth and scope of the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment extended the Fourth Amendment's right of privacy to the State actions. As a result, the Court held that the Fourth Amendment's right to privacy was enforceable against the states by the "same sanction of exclusion as is used against the Federal Government." In fact, in Elkins v. United States, the Court determined that the purpose of the exclusionary rule is "to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only effectively available way- by removing the incentive to disregard it." Historically, of all constitutionally guaranteed rights, only those protected by the Fourth Amendment had been conditionally guaranteed. The result was that, though a person could not be forced to…[continue]
"Mapp V Ohio" (2008, January 13) Retrieved July 31, 2015, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/mapp-v-ohio-32902
"Mapp V Ohio" 13 January 2008. Web.31 July. 2015. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/mapp-v-ohio-32902>
"Mapp V Ohio", 13 January 2008, Accessed.31 July. 2015, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/mapp-v-ohio-32902