Mapp v Ohio and the The Exclusionary Rule Explained
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 лип 2024
- Let HipHughes accompany you through the Exclusionary Rule through the 4th amendment and Mapp vs. Ohio and its exceptions. Subscribe to HipHughes History, it's stupid easy and free ua-cam.com/users/hughesdv...
I am a visual learner. I have repeatedly watched your videos. They really bring all that I have read in my text books to life. Thank you so very much. Believe me when I tell you. You have help me pass this evidence course.
It was Weeks v. United States that first brought up the concept of the rule. The problem is the Court ruled that the Exclusionary Rule applies to federal cases. Mapp expanded the rule to state cases
Followed by Silberthorne Lumber Co. v. Colorado and Wolf v. Colorado...but Mapp v. Cleveland was remarkable.
Thank God. I thought I was crazy and I looked for this comment. Thank you so much.
Thanks for making the video.
Mapp v Ohio 1961
US v Leon 1984
Ah just what I needed a good refresher. Subscribed.
Mr Hip Hughes, I came across your channel and you do seem to be doing an impressive job of demystifying the legal process for the non-lawyers amongst us. I would like to first appreciate it before I present something you got wrong in this video. Thanks a lot for doing such short summaries of landmark cases.
Now, with this video, Mapp didn't appeal to the Supreme Court about the State of Ohio violating the 4th amendment. In fact, her appeal was that the law in the State of Ohio that bans the so called obscene material was unconstitutional since it violates freedom of expression. It was the Supreme Court that realized that the violation of 4th amendment is much more prevalent with breaking in and entering and not presenting a valid warrant to Ms Mapp or during the trial which caused the evidence so acquired no admissible in court and so Ms Mapp ought to be released.
I love this channel! thanks so much
I appreciate you!!!!! Thank you for making learning fun! (:
Subscribed! You're such a great educator! Thank you!
AWESOME MAN!...THIS WAS MY 1ST TIME WATCHING!..JUST SUBSCRIBED!
Awesome synopsis and overview! Thanks!
Ugh dude you explained this sooo well !!!!
Of course I'm subbed--wouldn't miss it. Love the history stuff, makes me think of the past ;-)
You must not be googling correctly. Did you try "fun engaging hip history youtube lectures" ? You have a lot a lot of back episodes to catch up on. Be sure to tell your peeps too! Glad you're here by the way...... I was waiting. HHH
THIS IS SO HELPFUL!!! THANK YOU!!
Paula Ostroot Thanks! If you could please support us by voting or us in the Edublogs award, I would be much appreciative! Today is the lat day to vote. edublogawards.com/2014-awards/best-education-use-of-media-audio-video-podcast-etc-2014/
This really helped thank you
+ZedCraftGaming you're welcome!
Very well put-together video ! Gets right to the point and very easily understood. Thank you, Some of this info is helping me further understand this subject. Liked ans subd !
Keep em coming
Hilarious. Thoroughly enjoyed the video
Great video!
This helped me so much!!!
I used this in class last week ... good stuff! I looked, but I didn't see a Terry v. Ohio video. Am I just missing it? Thanks for all the good videos!
a cool jacket, yeah baby!
Thank you for your help.
Keith, I'm absolutely in the category of the "Weirdo" lifetime learners you shout out in every video. I love your work, do you know of good psyche and poli sci vloggers? Most of the educators on youtube tend to be hard science or history.
Thanks for the for the video, sir! It's very helpful. I like videos over reading my study guides.
You are right but this relates to transportation... warrants and cars have always been tricky.... police have in the past used reasonable suspicion as the test for cars because of the chance of imminent danger.... my lecture relates mostly to your home... but yes, 9/11 has changed some of the ideas but not the basic concept of you need a warrant to enter a home or risk losing the evidence. Thanks for your very welcome and smart comment. I hope you've subbed!
Yes. I just did not include it, the ticking time bomb... in some cases the police will get a warrant after the fact, I know in relationship to terrorism, the gov. can go to the FISA courts after the fact.
Mapp was 29 years old. She was young when arrested.
Awesome jacket. It looks like one of those jackets you'd see the cool cats wearing, in a 60s film.
Thank you. Stay safe.
Actually, Weeks 'created' the exclusionary rule - Mapp just incorporated it. Excellent video - you could also mention the 'curtilage' is protected - but after Herring and Davis from SCOTUS, the Exclusionary Rule i
Mr. Hughes,
Do you happen to know anything about the actual search inside Ms. Mapp's house? I am trying to figure out where the police found the policy (gambling paraphernalia) inside the house? I know there is conflicting evidence about the basement and the dressers, but that is mostly for the lewd magazines. Any insight?
Thank you thank you thank youuuuuu
You are weird and funny. I like your channel.
@Phillip Gilfus: Terry V. Ohio is where the "Pat down Doctrine" came from.
isnt that captain kangaroo's jacket?
Did you do a video about the war of 1812? If you didn't I think you should make one.
Leave the puppy out of this!!!!🥺😂
YEAH BABY!
For everyone's information!
In Massachusetts, the smell of cannabis is not probable cause for search and seizure.
That was decided in Commonwealth vs. Benjamin Cruz
And we are out of here thank you so much this video will help me pass my final
So if a cop randomly stops you in public and illegally searches you without probable cause and finds out a way to legally charge you with something it gets dropped?
So wait, fruit of the poison tree isn't an exception to the exclusionary rule, it's a part of it right?
Thx!
is this a precident for pottawatomie v earls?
what is up with that gnome my dude???
EXCEPT--everything you said goes up to about 2001. Since then, the Congress (under the Patriot Act) have given Law Enforcement new tools and exceptions and the courts have allowed much more "flexibility" by the police. The big exception is if you are within 100 miles of a US border, where the police are treating it as a stop and search zone.
Incorrect, the supremacy clause, makes the bill of RIGHTS apply to the states also.
Treason is not law and never will be.
Don't require "interpretation" of English, I understand it myself.
NOT a 14th amendment citizen, not black.
NO constitutional amendment allowing ANY lawful prohibition since alcohol prohibition was repealed...
THE ENTIRE drug war has been treason since the first minute....
lol I did a poster about this trial in criminal justice
Great video but they did find the suspect at the house but he was later released.
I like that he says he targets these for AP gov or what not and im a second year law student a few days before her crim pro final like
SAME!
@@genna193 good luck 👍
how do you have to get a new warent for illegal things that your old warent cant get. if you have illegal stuff and people look for that how do they need a new thing.
I watch it because I have crim law in law school and I am supplementing my studies
Dollree won her case. Good enough.
Thank you for another interesting lecture :). You should do one about blackmail, though - so I will know what to do the next time when you threaten to hurt a puppy. I was about to desuscribe because of your cruelty towards animals but then it would be me who would have indirectly hurt the puppy... :D.
aye mr cooks class wya 🤪
Tell Mr. Cool thank you for being your teacher.
Im watching bc I cant afford barbri lmao
what was the impact of this case exactly?
basically if law enforcement finds evidence against you in an unconstitutional way(in this case, searching someone's house without a warrant or probable cause), that evidence cannot be used against you in court.
So right on and sad about the interpretation not being what it says...its where our republic went wrong, one of the ways. Equal under the law period is what the original Constitution reads in all parts (for women, all races, sex's etc.) and limited federal government and government in general (less to states just takes more people to change it because we vote locally and every vote counts but still can be done). Like Ben Franklin said "if we can keep it." Man got ahold of it and damaged.
Because the supremacy clause and marbury v madison wasn't enough?
I believe the map is the fruit
0:05
im watching because Im in law school. A bit too late but whatever
Or maybe we’re a 3rd year law student! Thanks 😊
Reptiles rule
Wouldn't exigent circumstances be part of this?
why did you insult mapp.
loving the fake classroom :)
and the gnome
... has been largely diluted...
First