ical condition pursuant to Rile 803(3). In general hearsay evidence is not admissible. However, Rule 803(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence allows the admission of hearsay testimony into evidence if it tends to show the declarant's then-existing state of mind. The second case, State of North Carolina v. Robert Franklin Brewington, Defendant addresses the search of his automobile. Defendant argued that the evidence found in his automobile should have been excluded because his statements giving consent to the search was made without a voluntary and knowing waiver of his Miranda rights. The court ruled that from the totality of the evidence of record regarding defendant's arrest, waiver of Miranda rights, interrogation and statements made, we conclude defendant knowingly and voluntarily consented to the search of his vehicle. However, the case most readily identifiable with is Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that the exclusionary rule applies to the states as well as the deferral government. The ruling effectively overturns the rulings of Weeks v. Wolf in 1914 and Wolf v. Colorado 1949. In effect the ruling stated whether a case has state or federal jurisdiction, the law of search and seizure protects a person's rights to privacy by restricting the power of law enforcement officers and other government officials to search and seize a person and a person's property. The law of search and seizure comes not only from the Fourth Amendment, court decisions interpreting these laws and statutes with guidelines. An unlawful search or seizure may result in the exclusion of evidence from criminal proceedings, a civil lawsuit for money damages against the officers who made the illegal search, a criminal prosecution against the officers, or disciplinary action against officers by the employing agency. The ruling handed down by the Supreme Court provided a strict interpretation of the fourth amendment, ": "The right of the pe...
