Word: mapp
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1960-1969
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...have "absolutely no control" over them because they belong to the executive branch of government. Other judges disagree: police are widely considered an integral part of the administration of justice. The Supreme Court's famous Mallory rule commands federal police to bring suspects promptly before U.S. commissioners. In Mapp (1961), Escobedo (1964) and Miranda (1966), the court in effect ordered all American police to maintain certain standards on pain of losing their evidence. Last week Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Alfred Gittelson ordered all local police and prosecutors to obey an A.B.A.-style code of pretrial silence. He simply...
...however, Traynor forthrightly overruled himself in People v. Cahan, as the court imposed the exclusionary rule because "other remedies have completely failed" to stop lawless police action. Six years later, the Supreme Court itself followed Cahan and applied the rule to all American criminal courts (Mapp v. Ohio...
Significantly, it was Traynor who also eased the furor over Mapp by arguing in 1961 that the exclusionary rule should not be made retroactive. Its purpose, he noted, was to deter lawless police action from then on-not to help free prisoners who had been convicted on previously admissible evidence. Last year the Supreme Court followed precisely that reasoning in Linkletter v. Louisiana, which ruled out Mapp's retroactivity...
...Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled in 1961 that state courts must enforce the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against "unreasonable searches and seizures" by excluding illegal evidence, thus forcing state and local police to use judge-approved warrants for the first time in U.S. history. The Gideon decision invoked the Sixth Amendment to establish the right to counsel of all indigents accused of felonies-a decision that may be held to apply to misdemeanor cases as well. In other recent cases, the Supreme Court has also extended to the states the Fifth Amendment guarantee against self-incrimination...
...criticism by holding that retroactivity depends on each decision's purpose. When a ruling concerns the right to counsel, as in Gideon, it is likely to be made retroactive, because it raises new questions about the prisoner's actual guilt. By contrast, the court refused to make Mapp retroactive because that decision had what lawyers call the "prophylactic" purpose of deterring lawless police action in the future...