4 Comments

1. The majority opinion maintained that the exclusionary rule was not a “vital” part of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause and that states could adopt alternative remedies for addressing illegal searches and seizures. The decision in Wolf v. Colorado allowed states to determine their policies regarding the admissibility of evidence obtained unlawfully, and it wasn’t until Mapp v. Ohio (1961) that the Supreme Court incorporated the exclusionary rule to the states, requiring them to exclude illegally obtained evidence in criminal trials.

   Reply

2. Your articles are very helpful to me. May I request more information?

   Reply

3. Thanks for posting. I really enjoyed reading it, especially because it addressed my problem. It helped me a lot and I hope it will help others too.

   Reply

4. Deleted userNov 6, 2016
   The significance of this case is the limitations set on evidence allowed in a trial, specifically if the evidence was obtained illegally.
   Reply
   Kevin Lyles
   Deleted user
   Deleted userOct 27, 2016
   The constitutional question presented in this case was whether or not states were mandated by the fourth and fourteenth amendments to exclude illegally obtained evidence from trials.
   Reply
   Deleted user
   Deleted userNov 9, 2015
   The 14th amendment is still a amendment that people hold for the S.C to say that the fourth amendment right could be violated by the states so basically states have the right to violate the search seizure and with that in mind the constitution is not the highest law in the land if everyone does not have to follow the rule. Just as the Justice… said a dead letter is no law here it stands.
   Reply
   Deleted user
   Deleted user
   Yeah I agree. What ever happened to the bill of rights being incorporated to the states through the use of the 14th Amendment in the 1920s?? It looks like not all portions of the bill of rights were fully incorporated. Does anyone know if the 4th Amendment is incorporated today?(I surely hope so) I m not up to speed on that.
   Nov 9, 2015 (edited Nov 9, 2015)•Delete
   Comments above copied from original document
   Kevin Lyles
   Deleted user
   Deleted userNov 7, 2015
   There is an idea that while exclusion of certain evidence can discourage unreasonable searches, other methods also exist to produce the same effect. The problem is so many of these methods become temporary. Other methods replace them time and time again. At what point is there a method permanently cemented that addresses any conflict of unreasonable search or seizure?
   Reply
   Comments above copied from original document
   Razan Abu
   Razan AbuNov 11, 2014
   “in a prosecution in a State Court for a State crime, the Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure.”-Justice Felix Frankfurter
   Reply
   Comments above copied from original document
   B Bhatti
   B BhattiNov 10, 2014
   The essence of this case is that evidence retrieved illegally can still be used in court, which sounds ridiculous today because it was overruled 12 years later. However, it brought up an interesting point that there were other remedies for dealing with illegal evidence besides tossing it (Justice Felix Frankfurter).
   Reply
   Comments above copied from original document
   Deleted user
   Deleted userNov 10, 2014
   This case is very confusing. My thought process is if you amendment holds more power than another amendment, then shouldn’t the weaker amendment be unconstitutional? And is this a non-incorporation case? The court is incorporating the 14th amendment.

   Steven Bidochka
   Reply
   Comments above copied from original document
   Deleted user
   Deleted userNov 10, 2014
   This is the NON-incorporation case for the 4th amendments provision against unreasonable searches. a restatement of th6e issue before the Coourt wold be “whether a conviction by a state court that comes from evidence that would not have been admitted in a federal court denies the defendant due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.”

   The Court says no. Something I found interesting was justice blacks concurrence. He argues that the Fourth amendment does not articulate what is known as the “Exclusionary rule”, it is a rule of evidence that could be enforced or not, depending on congress or the states.

   Christen Lee
   Reply
   Comments above copied from original document
   Deleted user
   Deleted userNov 10, 2014
   http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92043809

   -Rachel Gilmore
   Reply
   Comments above copied from original document
   Deleted user
   Deleted userNov 10, 2014
   Intrusion of privacy is prohibited by due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
   Evidence that is gained by violating the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in federal court, but its not imposed to states by the Fourteenth Amendment.

   – Aashiqui Lad
   Reply
   Comments above copied from original document
   Deleted user
   Deleted userNov 10, 2014
   wolf v. colorado
   338 U.S. 25, 69 S. Ct. 1359, 93 L. Ed. 1782(1949)

   Facts:
   Julius Wolf was convicted of conspiring to commit abortions based on evidence that Wolf believe was taking illegally. Wolf claim that the his fourth amendment right was violated when the did a search and seizure.

   Wolf was convicted by the Supreme Court of Colorado.

   Issue:
   Were the states required to exclude illegally seized evidence from trial under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments?

   holding:
   6- 3 , the fourth amendment does not apply to the states. The court ruled that the exclusionary rule Illegally obtained evidence is admissible in courts.
   Reply
   Razan Abu
   Razan Abu
   overruled in Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
   Nov 11, 2014•Delete
   Comments above copied from original document
   Kevin Lyles
   Recent Site Activity|Report Abuse|Print Page|Remove Access|Powered By Google Sites

   Reply