Which supreme court case established that it was unconstitutional to search a person’s personal property without a proper search warrant? select one of the options below as your a. hernandez v. texas b. roe v. wade c. gideon v. wainright d. tinker v. des moines e. mapp v. ohio

A Supreme Court case originated that it was illegal to search a person’s personal possessions without an appropriate search warrant is Mapp v. Ohio. Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643 (1961) was a finding case in criminal investigation where the United States Supreme Court decided that proof (evidence) gained or found in misuse of the Fourth Amendment which protects opposed to "unreasonable seizures and searches," cannot be functioned in state law criminal trials, state courts, and federal criminal law trials in federal courts as had formerly been the law.

EXPLANATION:

The Supreme Court resolved this by using a prominent standard as selective integration; in Mapp this involved the needs’ integration, as interpreted by the Court, of the Fourth Amendment connecting only to the actions of the federal government into the clauses of the amendment process of the Amendment to the Fourteenth Amendment relating to state actions.

Certain investigations do not require a search warrant. For instance:

•Consent: a license is not required when an individual in charge of the object or property devotes consent for the examination.

•A criminal’s hot chase of (to prevent a criminal’s escape or ability to harm others);

•Approaching destruction of proof: where proof might be destroyed before an examination can be properly obtained;

•Emergency investigations: if there is somebody is yelling for help within a residence; or

•Investigation incident to arrest (to ease the damage risk to the capturing officers specifically).

•Public safety: a warrantless examination may be permissible in an emergency condition where the civic is in a risky situation.

•Plain view: the proof is in the plain view of law execution officers, from a legal vantage point (with comparable eliminations that includes simple smell, where the officer spots a scent that displays the occurrence of contraband or criminal activity).

In the case of a plain view, the officer is lawfully on the statements, his observation is from a legal vantage point, and it is promptly clear that the proof is illegal imports. The plain view law realizes, for instance, when the officer has decided the suspect for a seat belt violation and ensured a needle on the seat of the passenger.

LEARN MORE

If you’re interested in learning more about this topic, we recommend you to also take a look at the following questions:

•Which Supreme Court case established that it was unconstitutional to search a person’s personal property without a proper search warrant?

KEYWORDS: unreasonable searches and seizures, Mapp v. Ohio

Subject  : Social Studies

Class  : 10-12

Sub-Chapter: American Law History