Mapp v Ohio and the The Exclusionary Rule Explained

The video explores the Fourth Amendment, focusing on its language and interpretations through selective incorporation by the Warren Court. It highlights the Mapp vs. Ohio case, which established the exclusionary rule, and discusses exceptions to this rule. The video concludes with a call to action for viewers to subscribe.

What does the Fourth Amendment primarily protect against?

• Unreasonable searches and seizures

• Freedom of speech

• Right to bear arms

• Cruel and unusual punishment

Which amendment allows the federal government to protect citizens against state actions?

• Fifth Amendment

• Fourteenth Amendment

• First Amendment

• Tenth Amendment

What is selective incorporation?

• Applying federal rights to state governments through the 14th Amendment.

• Allowing states to create their own Bill of Rights.

• Excluding certain rights from state application.

• Incorporating state laws into federal law.

Who was Earl Warren?

• A senator who opposed the Bill of Rights.

• A president who signed the 14th Amendment.

• A conservative governor who became a liberal Supreme Court justice.

• A famous boxing promoter.

What is the significance of the Mapp v. Ohio case?

• It abolished the death penalty.

• It allowed for the right to bear arms.

• It created the exclusionary rule.

• It established the right to free speech.

Which court case is associated with the exclusionary rule?

• Brown v. Board of Education

• Mapp v. Ohio

• Miranda v. Arizona

• Roe v. Wade

What is the plain view doctrine?

• A rule that allows evidence in plain sight to be seized without a warrant.

• A rule that prohibits any form of search without consent.

• A rule that requires all evidence to be hidden from view.

• A rule that mandates police to have a warrant for all searches.

What is the good faith exception?

• Evidence obtained in good faith is always excluded.

• Police must always have a warrant, regardless of circumstances.

• Evidence obtained without a warrant is always inadmissible.

• Evidence obtained with a faulty warrant can be used if the police acted in good faith.

What does the inevitable discovery doctrine state?

• Evidence found illegally is always excluded.

• All evidence must be discovered with a warrant.

• Evidence that would have been discovered legally is admissible.

• Evidence must be discovered by accident to be admissible.

What is the 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine?

• Evidence obtained illegally and any evidence derived from it is inadmissible.

• Evidence obtained legally is always admissible.

• All evidence is admissible regardless of how it was obtained.

• Only direct evidence is inadmissible if obtained illegally.