{"id":13591,"date":"2018-02-10T18:10:08","date_gmt":"2018-02-10T18:10:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=13591"},"modified":"2018-02-10T19:41:09","modified_gmt":"2018-02-10T19:41:09","slug":"mapp-hearing-a-hearing-held-to-determine-whether-evidence-implicating-the-accused-was-obtained-as-a-result-of-an-illegal-search-and-seizure-and-should-therefore-be-suppressed","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=13591","title":{"rendered":"Mapp Hearing – held to determine if evidence was obtained via an illegal search and seizure, and should therefore be suppressed"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 This page is continued from >>>> Court Proceedings<\/a> >>>> Criminal Proceedings<\/a> >>>> Phases of a Criminal Court Proceedings<\/a> >>>> Hearing<\/a> >>>> Hearings pertaining to Suppressing Evidence and the Fourth Amendment:<\/span>
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

***********************<\/p>\n

Mapp<\/em> hearing<\/span>:<\/span>
\n<\/strong>(1971)<\/span><\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Criminal procedure<\/em>. A hearing held to determine whether evidence implicating the accused was obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure, and should therefore be suppressed. Mapp v. Ohio<\/em>, 367 U.S. 642, 81 S.Ct. 1684 (1961)<\/span>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Mapp v. Ohio<\/span><\/em>:<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

A 1961 decision of the Supreme Court (367 U.S. 643<\/span>) holding that evidence seized by the police in violation of the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures is inadmissible in a criminal prosecution in state court, under the exclusionary rule, which applies in the states by virtue of the Fourth Amendment.<\/strong> [2]<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Excerpt from <\/span>“<\/span>Essential Supreme Court Decisions; Summaries of Leading Cases in u.S. Constitutional Law<\/a>” by John R. Vile<\/span>:<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 “The Fourth Amendment does not specify what shall happen in cases where the government conducts illegal searches and seizures, but the Supreme Court has developed the exclusionary rule largely in an attempt to deter illegal police conduct in such cases.\u00a0 Originally applied only to the national government in Weeks v. United States<\/em> (1914), the Court extended this rule to the states in Mapp v. Ohio<\/em> (1961).\u00a0 Largeley becasue this rule often results in the loss of probative evidence, since then the Court has carved out a number of exceptions, as wehn governmental officials act in reasonable good faith, United States v. Leon<\/em> (1984), or when courts believe that information obtained in a search would otherwise have been the result of ‘inevitable discovery,’ Nix v. Williams<\/em> (1984).<\/span>“<\/strong> [3]<\/span><\/p>\n

References:<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Disclaimer:<\/span><\/span><\/strong> All material throughout this website is compiled in accordance with Fair Use<\/a>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[1]: Black\u2019s Law Dictionary\u00a0Deluxe Tenth Edition\u00a0by Henry Campbell Black & Editor in Chief Bryan A. Garner<\/a>. ISBN: 978-0-314-62130-6<\/b><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[2]: Ballantine\u2019s Law Dictionary\u00a0<\/a><\/b><\/span><\/strong>with Pronunciations
\n<\/b><\/span><\/em>Third Edition<\/b><\/span><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0<\/span><\/strong>by James A. Ballantine\u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/strong>(James Arthur 1871-1949).\u00a0\u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/em>Edited by William S. Anderson.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a9 1969 by THE LAWYER\u2019S CO-OPERATIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY.\u00a0 Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 68-30931<\/b><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[3]:\u00a0\u00a0Ballantine\u2019s Law Dictionary <\/a><\/b><\/span><\/strong>Legal Assistant Edition<\/b><\/span><\/a><\/em>
\nby Jack Ballantine\u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/strong>(James Arthur 1871-1949).\u00a0\u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/em>Doctored<\/b><\/span><\/a><\/strong>\u00a0<\/span><\/em>by\u00a0Jack G. Handler,\u00a0J.D.<\/a>\u00a0\u00a9 1994 Delmar by Thomson Learning.\u00a0 ISBN 0-8273-4874-6.<\/b><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[4]: “Essential Supreme Court Decisions; Summaries of Leading Cases in u.S. Constitutional Law<\/a>” by John R. Vile, p. 334<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

*******************************<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Back to Types of Pleas (criminal law)<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Back to<\/span><\/span><\/strong> Types of <\/a><\/span><\/strong>Pleas<\/span><\/em> and <\/span><\/strong>Pleadings<\/span><\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

Back to <\/span><\/span><\/strong>Criminal Law Self-Help<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Home Page<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Like this website?<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Please Support Our Fundraiser<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

or donate via\u00a0PayPal<\/a>:<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n