The answer is 1870 i’m pretty sure
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
Tuesday to change long-held Senate rules to make it easier to pass his ... either elect more Republican Senators in 2018 or change the rules now to 51%. ... Senate and White House, could reshape America if they eliminated ... "The requirement that you need to reach across the aisle is a good thing.
