ANSWERS: 5
  • The supreme court case Mapp vs. Ohio
  • You can look up the key words or Mapp v Ohio on Findlaw.com. It's free (unlike Westlaw) and has US Supeme Court opinions on site. This sounds like a freshman legal research question.
  • I would think if the search warrant stated, search the garage, and the bathroom was searched, and they found something in there, it could not be used, because a search warrant has to be very specific, on what and where they are looking, and what for. This is my understanding.
  • This video contains information on knowing your rights during these situations.
  • Mapp v. Ohio didn't concern a valid search warrant. A search that could violate the 4th's "reasonable" requirement by going beyond the bounds of a valid warrant could include a warrant issued for apartment 301 in an apartment building. The cops arrive, search 301, and realize that the guy they're after actually lives in 302, and then attempting to search 302 on the same warrant. Since the warrant described 301 particularly, the cops are in violation of the warrant requirement unless their search was based on a good-faith mistake (see US v. Leon) or exigent circumstances.

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy