Which case began applying the exclusionary rule to state courts for illegally obtained evidence?

Which case began applying the exclusionary rule to state courts for illegally obtained evidence?

• A. Gitlow v. New York (1925)
• B. Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
• C. Printz v. United States (1997)
• D. Lopez v. United States (1995)

Answer: (B)

The main idea is how the exclusionary rule becomes binding on state courts. Originally, the exclusionary rule—keeping illegally obtained evidence out of federal trials—applied only to the federal government. Mapp v. Ohio extended that protection to the states by using the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause to incorporate the Fourth Amendment. In other words, what’s unlawful for federal authorities is also unlawful for state and local authorities, so evidence obtained through illegal searches cannot be admitted in state prosecutions. The other cases involve different constitutional issues: Gitlow dealt with incorporation of free speech to the states, Printz with federalism and background checks, and Lopez with the Commerce Clause and gun possession.

The main idea is how the exclusionary rule becomes binding on state courts. Originally, the exclusionary rule—keeping illegally obtained evidence out of federal trials—applied only to the federal government. Mapp v. Ohio extended that protection to the states by using the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause to incorporate the Fourth Amendment. In other words, what’s unlawful for federal authorities is also unlawful for state and local authorities, so evidence obtained through illegal searches cannot be admitted in state prosecutions. The other cases involve different constitutional issues: Gitlow dealt with incorporation of free speech to the states, Printz with federalism and background checks, and Lopez with the Commerce Clause and gun possession.