What other rationales are discussed in Mapp v. Ohio? If the other rationales were retained in Mapp v. Ohio, would we have the other good faith exceptions,

1 Answer | Add Yours

kvtaylor's profile pic

kvtaylor | Teacher | (Level 1) Adjunct Educator

Posted on

State governments should not be allowed to benefit from federal violations of a person's constitutional rights, specifically 4th Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The U. S. Supreme Court's holding in Mapp v. Ohio eliminates the "silver platter" effect of its earlier reasoning, extending the exclusionary rule to encompass state and local action as well as federal action. The exceptions to the exclusionary rule became issues only after Mapp, which, arguably, are tied to a trend toward more emphasis on crime control versus citizens' civil rights.

We’ve answered 318,005 questions. We can answer yours, too.

Ask a question