...basic right, reserved to all persons as a specific guarantee against that very same unlawful conduct. We hold that all evidence obtained by searches and...that same authority, inadmissible in a State court. Since the 4th amendment's right of privacy has been declared enforceable against the States through...

...Amendments. On June 19, 1961, we decided Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643, in which the Court specifically held that "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures...that same authority, inadmissible in a state court." 367 US, at 655. Stating that this Court had previously held in Wolf v. Colorado, 338 US 25, that the...

...Amendments. On June 19, 1961, we decided Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643, in which the Court specifically held that "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures...that same authority, inadmissible in a state court." 367 US, at 655. Stating that this Court had previously held in Wolf v. Colorado, 338 US 25, that the...

...unlawfully seized during an unlawful search of defendant's home." The Supreme Court reversed and held that "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures...that same authority, inadmissible in a state court." Subsequently the Supreme Court held, in Linkletter v. Walker,' that the exclusionary rule of Mapp did...

...unlawful search and seizure. Weeks v. United States, 232 US 383. More recently, this Court has held that "the exclusionary rule is an essential part of both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments . . . ." Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643, 657. However, we have also held that rights assured by the Fourth...

...unlawful search and seizure. Weeks v. United States, 232 US 383. More recently, this Court has held that "the exclusionary rule is an essential part of both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments . . . ." Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643, 657. However, we have also held that rights assured by the Fourth...

...the exclusionary rule is an essential part of both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments . . ." and, "We hold that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is ... inadmissible in a state court." We think it unlikely, to say the least, that what was meant by...

...the exclusionary rule is an essential part of both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments . . ." and, "We hold that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is ... inadmissible in a state court." We think it unlikely, to say the least, that what was meant by...

...subject to the constraints of the Fourth Amendment, and fingerprint evidence is no exception to the rule that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is inadmissible in a state court. Davis v. Mississippi, p. 721. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW— Continued. 5. Fingerprints...

...US 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, L. ed. 2d - - (1961). Thus, in Mapp, Mr. Justice Clark stated for the Court: "We hold that all evidence obtained by searches and...that same authority, inadmissible in a state court." [Mapp v Ohio, supra, at p. 655.] That principle has been consistently applied by the Supreme Court...