Justice Black stated in the concurring opinion that the Fourth Amendment's ban against unreasonable searches and seizures is considered together with the Fifth Amendment's ban against compelled self-incrimination, a constitutional basis emerges which not only justifies but actually requires the exclusionary rule
Are there any concurring opinions?
I personally think that the 4th amendment does not itself contain any provision expressly precluding the use of such evidence
Justice Harlan argued that the majority should have limited its decision to the First Amendment issues raised in Mapp’s petition. By reaching out to consider the application of the exclusionary rule to the states, Harlan maintained that the majority ignored the principles of judicial restraint
I have to disagree with the majority opinion
Does anyone have any dissenting opinions to share?
The Court held that evidence that was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment could not be used against someone in State or Federal court. The federal exclusionary rule now applies to the States through application of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. All illegally obtained evidence under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution must now be excluded
fine, but whatever you find that you are not looking for is my property and you don't have the right to take
sir, we have a search warrant to search your property
yes, that is correct since it is a constitutional right brought to you by the 4th amendment
The ruling gave the right of people to be secure against “unreasonable searches and seizures” had any real meaning for people charged with crimes in state court. The ruling also established the rule that evidence that has been obtained by an illegal search and seizure cannot be used to prove the guilt of a defendant at a state criminal trial
Citizens have the right to be secure against “unreasonable searches and seizures”