Mapp V. Ohio Over the centuries, there has been considerable debate as to the application of the Bill of Rights when it comes to the states. This is because a series of court cases decided it was only relevant when it came to the federal government (i.e. Barron v. Baltimore and United States v. Cruickshank). However, with the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, these states were obligated to follow them. This has shifted the debate as to if this aspect of the Constitution is relevant to state and local officials. To determine if this is correct requires examining a fictional case in contrast with Mapp V. Ohio. This will be accomplished by carefully studying the facts of the case, the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine (under Mapp V. Ohio), the application of the rule of law and discussing how this would affect the ruling from the fictitious scenario. Together, the elements will highlight the way the Bill of Rights is applicable. ("Barron V. Baltimore," 2007) ("U.S.V. Cruickshank," 2010)

State the facts that are relevant and not relevant in the fact pattern

In the fictional case, Detective Mark Quick Draw is using a confidential informant to provide him with information about Sally Martin. Her address is known for being a drug house and it is believed that this kind of activity is occurring at the location. To confirm this Quick Draw sends in his confidential informant. He returns 20 minutes later with some cocaine. They subsequently tell the police that there is a rectangular looking package sitting in an open garbage bag and number of scales. The combination...

However, he is in the middle of a legal proceeding and the warrant will be delayed by an hour. Outside of the location, Detective Quick Draw continues to see people coming and going. After watching this several times, he immediately calls for uniform backup and raids the location. During the search they do not uncover evidence of a major drug operation. As the package is nothing more than trash and there are no scales anywhere. Instead, the police discover a large bag of heroin in her night stand. Sally is a convicted felon, who is not allowed to have these kinds of substance. She is subsequently charged and her attorney has filed a motion to suppress the evidence.
What are the rules of law stated in Mapp v. Ohio? Be sure to address the exclusionary rule and the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine

In Mapp V. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that any kind of search must be in accordance with Fourth Amendment for the states and local jurisdictions. This is because the Fourteenth Amendment states that everyone is entitled to due process of law. As a result, the entire Bill of Rights is applicable to them (in order to be in compliance with these provisions). If any kind violation of the Fourth Amendment occurs (such as: an illegal search and seizure), the court has the ability to correct these oversights. ("The Fourth Amendment and the Exclusionary Rule," 2012) ("Mapp V.…