rule says that evidence gained as a result of an illegal act by police cannot be used against the person from who is seized. In the case Mapp v. Ohio 1961, police entered a Mapps home thinking that will find evidence of illegal gambling. While searching the house they found no evidence of gambling, but did find dirty magazines. Mapp was arrested and charged with having obscene materials. After being sentenced to jail the Supreme Court decided that the evidence was illegally obtained, because of the exclusionary rule. Within recent years the court has cut down on the exclusionary rule. (History Channel Online) Even though the rule says that illegally obtained evidence cannot be used in a trial, it can be used in a federal grand jury preceding. The court has given officers the benefit of the doubt to make honest mistakes. This ruling came as a result of the case Maryland v. Garrison 1987. In this case, police had a warrant to search an apartment for drugs. When the officers went to the apartment complex to make a search they entered the wrong apartment but still found drugs. In Olmstead v. United States, 1928 the court saw its first case dealing with electronic bugging. The court ruled that police did not need a warrant to tape his phone calls because it did not invade him physically. In 1967 the court ruled differently in the case Katz v. United States. In this case Katz placed a phone call from a public phone booth to send and receive betting information. To receive evidence of the crime, federal agents placed a bug outside of the booth. After being arrested the court ruled that even though it was in a public place, he was making a private call. It was an illegal search. Now because of this case police now have to have a search warrant before using wiretapping. This applies to any and all people. (Katz v. U.S.) Along with the first eight amendments, the 4th Amendment deals with personal freedom. (Encarta Online) The 4th...
