Other Free Encyclopedias » Law Library - American Law and Legal Information » Notable Trials and Court Cases - 1954 to 1962 » Mapp v. Ohio - Significance, Court Applies Exclusionary Rule To States, The Exclusionary Rule, Further Readings

Mapp v. Ohio - The Exclusionary Rule

evidence illegally obtained criminal

According to the exclusionary rule governing search and seizure, evidence obtained illegally cannot be used to convict a suspect in a criminal case. There are a number of exceptions to the exclusionary rule, not least of which is the "good faith" exception. Thus when officers conduct a search that turns out to be illegal but which they believed in good faith to be legal while they were doing it--e.g., with an expired warrant, as in United States v. Leon (1984)--the evidence is still permissible. Illegally obtained evidence may be used to impeach the testimony of a defendant who testifies in their own defense; and a private citizen may use illegally obtained evidence, as long as he or she did not obtain it on orders from law-enforcement personnel. Moreover, the exclusionary rule applies only to criminal trials: evidence obtained illegally is not forbidden in civil cases, or in grand jury proceedings.

[back] Mapp v. Ohio - Court Applies Exclusionary Rule To States

User Comments

Your email address will be altered so spam harvesting bots can't read it easily.
Hide my email completely instead?

Cancel or