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
It blocked other people from coming in to the land
Answer:
TYSM!!!!!!!! Your da best!!!!!!!
Explanation:
The Southern ambivalence to its values and the republican stance of Lincoln being against the values thus thought made the South fall into the hands of Democrats.
Explanation:
The Democrats of the recent age have a strenuous grasp on the country's south at best but this was not the case in the post civil war US when the South was extremely agitated.
The South was agitated against the republicans due to their own notions of an ideal southern value which was forsaken by the republicans.
So they began voting for candidates from the Democratic party in passive numbers in the elections after the civil war happened in the response to the war time plight
