Search for: "Mapp v. State"
Results 141 - 160
of 187
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Apr 2010, 2:06 pm
(He was not a fan of the blanket policy, at least not in that case, but in Mapp v. [read post]
24 Mar 2010, 5:19 pm
Arizona and Mapp v. [read post]
2 Mar 2010, 11:10 am
United States, — U.S. [read post]
18 Feb 2010, 3:35 am
One study back in the 60’s showed that in the years after Mapp v. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 10:18 pm
Dawkins v. [read post]
13 Jan 2010, 3:54 am
See State v. [read post]
17 Sep 2009, 6:59 am
State v. [read post]
17 Aug 2009, 8:29 pm
Previous Supreme Court rulings, including Mapp v. [read post]
6 Aug 2009, 8:31 am
Wade, Mapp v. [read post]
29 May 2009, 3:23 am
State v. [read post]
27 Apr 2009, 11:45 am
But despite its critics, it has also been a seemingly unimpeachable pillar of constitutional criminal procedure since the Supreme Court held in Mapp v Ohio (1961) that the remedy applied to states (via the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments) as much as to the federal government. [read post]
9 Apr 2009, 7:13 am
Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972); Mapp v. [read post]
19 Mar 2009, 7:53 am
Irwin Industrial Tool Co. v. [read post]
3 Feb 2009, 11:16 am
United States as a big step towards repealing the exclusionary rule the Court crafted in 1961 in Mapp v. [read post]
1 Feb 2009, 5:35 am
He notes the probability that four votes already exist to overturn Mapp v. [read post]
30 Jan 2009, 11:47 pm
Immediately after the decision, Mapp v. [read post]
20 Jan 2009, 11:30 pm
To do so would be no more violative of precedent that the state court decision affirmed in Roper v. [read post]
19 Jan 2009, 10:33 pm
Smart folks are still trying to work out whether the Herring case decided last week by the US Supreme Court narrowing the exclusionary rule is a big deal or a little one, and several good blog posts by attorneys have helped me think about the issue more concretely.Kent Scheidegger even thinks "Herring may be setting the stage for the Holy Grail -- overruling Mapp v. [read post]
16 Jan 2009, 10:06 pm
But the four dissenters appear to revive the other rationale for the rule, stated in Mapp but fallen from favor: that exclusion preserves the integrity of the judiciary by avoiding complicity in the constitutional violation. [read post]
29 Dec 2008, 8:12 pm
" In United States v. [read post]
