Which case established the exclusionary rule at the state level for illegally obtained evidence?

Which case established the exclusionary rule at the state level for illegally obtained evidence?

• A. Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
• B. McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
• C. Wickard v. Filburn (1942)
• D. Lopez v. United States (1995)

Answer: (A)

The main idea being tested is how the exclusionary rule, which bars evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, extends to state prosecutions through incorporation. Mapp v. Ohio (1961) is the case that does this, holding that the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. This meant that illegally obtained evidence could not be used in state courts, just as it couldn’t be used in federal courts under Weeks v. United States, and it overruled the earlier notion that the rule applied only to federal prosecutions. The other cases focus on different constitutional questions about federal power—McCulloch v. Maryland deals with federal supremacy and implied powers, Wickard v. Filburn relates to Commerce Clause reach over intrastate activity, and Lopez v. United States concerns limits on Congress’s commerce authority.

The main idea being tested is how the exclusionary rule, which bars evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, extends to state prosecutions through incorporation. Mapp v. Ohio (1961) is the case that does this, holding that the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. This meant that illegally obtained evidence could not be used in state courts, just as it couldn’t be used in federal courts under Weeks v. United States, and it overruled the earlier notion that the rule applied only to federal prosecutions. The other cases focus on different constitutional questions about federal power—McCulloch v. Maryland deals with federal supremacy and implied powers, Wickard v. Filburn relates to Commerce Clause reach over intrastate activity, and Lopez v. United States concerns limits on Congress’s commerce authority.