 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Monroe v. Pape, No. 39,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, February 20, 1961, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioners sought review of the judgment against them in their suit against police officers and city officials, contending that the invasion of their home, subsequent search without a warrant, and their arrest and detention without a warrant and without arraignment constituted a deprivation of their rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution within the meaning of 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983. On appeal, the judgment was reversed. In support of its ruling, the Supreme Court held that the guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures contained in U.S. Const. amend. IV was applicable to the states by reason of the Due Process Clause of U.S. Const. amend. XIV. The Court further held that 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 meant to give a remedy to parties deprived of constitutional rights, privileges, and immunities by an official's abuse of his position, as the federal remedy was supplementary to any state remedy, and the latter need not have been first sought and refused before the federal one was invoked.
|
|||||
| Mapp v. Ohio, No. 236,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 19, 1961, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was apparent that the materials introduced into evidence in the prosecution of defendant were seized during an illegal search of defendant's residence in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Nevertheless, the state supreme court affirmed defendant's conviction for possessing lewd material in violation of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2905.34 on the basis that the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply in the state court prosecution of defendant for a state crime to forbid the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure. On appeal, the Court reversed the state supreme court's decision. The Court held that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extended to the States the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. And, as necessary to ensure such rights, the exclusionary rule, which prohibited the introduction into evidence of material seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment, likewise applied to the State's prosecution of state crimes.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
