Linkletter v. Walker - Significance, Impact, Retroactivity
Victor G. Walker
Evidence obtained as a result of unreasonable search and seizure should be found inadmissible under the Fourth Amendment under Mapp v. Ohio.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Euel A. Screws, Jr.
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Teddy W. Airhart, Jr.
Justices for the Court
William J. Brennan, Jr., Tom C. Clark (writing for the Court), Arthur Goldberg, John Marshall Harlan II, Potter Stewart, Earl Warren, Byron R. White
Hugo Lafayette Black, William O. Douglas
Date of Decision
7 June 1965
In the Constitution there are no circumstances that require retroactive implementation of the exclusionary rule.
- Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914).
- Wolf v. People of the State of Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949).
- Reck v. Pate, 367 U.S. 433 (1961).
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
- Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 (1963).
West's Encyclopedia of American Law. St. Paul, MN: West Group, 1998.
- Hall, Kermit L., ed. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
- Loving v. Commonwealth of Virginia - Significance, Interracial Marriage
- Levy v. Louisiana - Significance, The Levy Family, An Important Reversal: Illegitimate Children As Persons, An Important Reversal
- Linkletter v. Walker - Significance
- Linkletter v. Walker - Impact
- Linkletter v. Walker - Retroactivity
- Other Free Encyclopedias