2007-03-13 13:51:10 · 4 answers · asked by ritabrannonrita 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Um im not sure what you mean by "accepted" but i would think they use it more because cops may frequently forget to inform citizens of their rights and this can cause guilty people to go free. In Mapp V. Ohio cops need a warrant but they also have a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. In that case cops can give valid warrants even if there are some mistakes on there if they are doing it in "good faith"
2007-03-13 14:06:18 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
"More accepted".... by who?
Both are still current Supreme Court precedent.
If I remember Mapp from con law, it basically held that the 4th Amendment protections, including the exclusionary rule, apply to state and local police action, not just federal action.
Who is seriously trying to argue that the exclusionary rules should no longer apply in state prosecutions? Have we lost that much of our sanity as a nation that it no longer matters how badly the police break the law?
2007-03-13 20:54:11 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
For those of us who are not as up on Supreme Court precedents as your first answerer, what is Mapp v Ohio?
2007-03-13 20:55:41 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
because of miranda we get our rights read 2 us
2007-03-13 20:54:35 · answer #4 · answered by darkpayaso 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋