In <em>Mapp v. Ohio</em>, the Supreme Court ruled <u>B. If the police</u> violate the law to obtain evidence, they cannot use that evidence against an accused person in court.
<h3>What was the place of evidence in the case of Mapp v. Ohio?</h3>
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the state in a 5-3 vote, favoring Mapp, from whom evidence was obtained without due process.
The implication is that evidence seized unlawfully from a suspect or an accused, without a search warrant, could not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts.
Thus, in <em>Mapp v. Ohio</em>, the Supreme Court ruled <u>B. If the police</u> violate the law to obtain evidence, they cannot use that evidence against an accused person in court.
Learn more about the importance of evidence in criminal prosecutions at brainly.com/question/7802791
#SPJ1
Because they were trying to revise the articles of confederation. And people like Alexander Hamilton despised the articles of confederation.
The Bill of Rights is apart of the constitution, whereas the democratic party and political parties are not mentioned in the constitution. I would go with political parties since they were developed during the same time as the constitution and is broader than just democrats (the democratic party was founded in the early 1820s.)
