MCOLES State Licensing Practice Exam

What does the Mapp v. Ohio case establish regarding evidence?

1. All evidence is admissible if it is relevant

2. Evidence obtained illegally is not admissible in trial

3. Evidence must be obtained with a warrant

4. Evidence can always be challenged by the defense

The correct answer is: Evidence obtained illegally is not admissible in trial

The case of Mapp v. Ohio is a landmark decision that established the exclusionary rule, which states that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, particularly through illegal searches and seizures, cannot be used in criminal prosecutions. This ruling effectively extended the exclusionary rule, which was initially applied to federal cases, to state courts. The impact of this case is significant because it reinforces the protection of individuals' rights against unlawful government actions. It emphasizes the principle that law enforcement must adhere to constitutional standards when gathering evidence, thereby upholding the integrity of the judicial system. The other options may touch upon aspects of evidence admissibility, but they do not encapsulate the crucial ruling established by Mapp v. Ohio. For instance, while obtaining a warrant is often required for searches, that isn't the sole focus of this case. Similarly, the relevance of evidence does not automatically determine its admissibility when it has been obtained unlawfully. Lastly, while the defense can challenge evidence, Mapp v. Ohio specifically set the precedent for excluding evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights.