This is a Complaint pleading for use in litigation of the title matter. Adapt this form to comply with your facts and circumstances, and with your specific state law. Not recommended for use by non-attorneys.
4th Amendment To Constitution In Cuyahoga
Category:
State:
Multi-State
County:
Cuyahoga
Control #:
US-000280
Format:
Word;
Rich Text
Instant download
Description
Free preview
Form popularity
FAQ
OHIO, decided on 20 June 1961, was a landmark court case originating in Cleveland, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that under the 4th and 14th Constitutional amendments, illegally seized evidence could not be used in a state criminal trial.
The Supreme Court Decision Clark, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mapp. The Court held that the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures must be enforced by the exclusionary rule, and this rule applies to state courts through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
The Court held that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial and, as such, applies the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and possessions, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched and the person and things to ...
The exclusionary rule evolved because of the ineffectiveness of the warrant procedure in preventing illegal searches and seizures, and it remains effective as a means of preventing the government from achieving the ends of its illegal activity and as a symbol of the justice system's commitment to the citizen rights ...
In particular, this case found that the exclusionary rule, which prohibits prosecutors from using evidence acquired illegally in violation of the Fourth Amendment, applies to both federal and state governments.
To claim a violation of Fourth Amendment rights as the basis for suppressing relevant evidence, courts have long required that the claimant must prove that they were the victim of an invasion of privacy to have a valid standing.
The ultimate goal of this provision is to protect people's right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable intrusions by the government. However, the Fourth Amendment does not guarantee protection from all searches and seizures, but only those done by the government and deemed unreasonable under the law.
Generally, a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy for property and personal effects they hold open to the public. The Fourth Amendment does not protect things that are visible or in "plain view" for a person of ordinary and unenhanced vision.
Either branch of the General Assembly may propose amendments to this constitution; and, if the same shall be agreed to by three-fifths of the members elected to each house, such proposed amendments shall be entered on the journals, with the yeas and nays, and shall be filed with the secretary of state at least ninety ...