This HTML5 document contains 158 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Namespace Prefixes

PrefixIRI
dctermshttp://purl.org/dc/terms/
yago-reshttp://yago-knowledge.org/resource/
dbohttp://dbpedia.org/ontology/
n15http://dbpedia.org/resource/File:
n18https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/367/
foafhttp://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
n30https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/us/
n22http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep367/usrep367643/
n17https://global.dbpedia.org/id/
umbel-rchttp://umbel.org/umbel/rc/
n14http://images.ulib.csuohio.edu/cdm4/
yagohttp://dbpedia.org/class/yago/
dbthttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:
rdfshttp://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
n25http://dbpedia.org/resource/Landmark_Cases:
n9http://landmarkcases.c-span.org/Case/9/
n27https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/367/
freebasehttp://rdf.freebase.com/ns/
dbpedia-simplehttp://simple.dbpedia.org/resource/
n24http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:FilePath/
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
owlhttp://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
n26https://archive.org/details/
n29https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/367/643/
wikipedia-enhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
dbphttp://dbpedia.org/property/
dbchttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:
provhttp://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
n16https://www.oyez.org/cases/1960/
wikidatahttp://www.wikidata.org/entity/
dbrhttp://dbpedia.org/resource/

Statements

Subject Item
dbr:Mapp_v._Ohio
rdf:type
yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100 owl:Thing yago:WikicatUnitedStatesSupremeCourtCases umbel-rc:Event wikidata:Q2334719 yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntity yago:Event100029378 yago:Case107308889 yago:Abstraction100002137 dbo:UnitOfWork dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase dbo:LegalCase yago:Happening107283608 dbo:Case
rdfs:label
Mapp v. Ohio
rdfs:comment
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the exclusionary rule, which prevents prosecutors from using evidence in court that was obtained by violating the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, applies not only to the federal government but also to the U.S. state governments. The Supreme Court accomplished this by use of a principle known as selective incorporation; in Mapp this involved the incorporation of the provisions, as interpreted by the Court, of the Fourth Amendment which is applicable only to actions of the federal government into the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause which is applicable to actions of the states.
rdfs:seeAlso
dbr:Exclusionary_rule
foaf:name
Dollree Mapp v. State of Ohio
foaf:depiction
n24:Tom_C._Clark.gif
dcterms:subject
dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:United_States_privacy_case_law dbc:American_Civil_Liberties_Union_litigation dbc:Cuyahoga_County,_Ohio dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Warren_Court dbc:Incorporation_case_law dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions_that_overrule_a_prior_Supreme_Court_decision dbc:United_States_Fourth_Amendment_case_law dbc:1961_in_United_States_case_law dbc:20th-century_American_trials dbc:Cleveland_Division_of_Police
dbo:wikiPageID
352587
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
1113833809
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Numbers_game dbc:United_States_privacy_case_law dbc:American_Civil_Liberties_Union_litigation dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbr:N.E.2d dbr:Due_process_clause dbr:Damages dbr:A.L.R.2d dbr:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States dbr:Ohio_Courts_of_Common_Pleas dbr:Replevin dbr:Stare_decisis dbc:Cuyahoga_County,_Ohio dbr:Hugo_Black dbr:U.S._federal_government n15:Tom_C._Clark.gif dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Warren_Court dbr:Evidence_(law) dbr:Search_and_seizure dbr:Pistol dbr:Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution dbr:Cuyahoga_County,_Ohio dbr:Selective_incorporation dbr:False_evidence dbr:Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution dbr:Don_King_(boxing_promoter) dbc:Incorporation_case_law dbr:Due_process dbr:Tom_C._Clark dbr:Supreme_Court_of_Ohio dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions_that_overrule_a_prior_Supreme_Court_decision dbr:William_R._Day dbr:U.S._Constitution dbr:Weeks_v._United_States dbr:Downtown_Cleveland dbr:Cleveland n25:_Historic_Supreme_Court_Decisions dbr:Wolf_v._Colorado dbr:Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution dbr:Ohio_Supreme_Court dbr:C-SPAN dbr:Pornographic dbc:United_States_Fourth_Amendment_case_law dbr:Emetic dbr:Ohio_Court_of_Appeals dbr:United_States_Bill_of_Rights dbr:Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree dbc:20th-century_American_trials dbr:L._Ed._2d dbc:Cleveland_Division_of_Police dbr:John_Marshall_Harlan_II dbr:Shondor_Birns dbc:1961_in_United_States_case_law dbr:Trespass dbr:Dollree_Mapp dbr:Misdemeanor dbr:U.S._state dbr:Exclusionary_rule dbr:U.S._LEXIS dbr:Search_warrant
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
n9:Mapp-V-Ohio n14:results.php%3FCISOOP1=exact&CISOBOX1=Mapp%2C+Dollree+--+Trials%2C+litigation%2C+etc&CISOFIELD1=lc&CISOOP2=all&CISOBOX2=mapp%2C+dollree+--+trials%2C+litigation%2C+etc&CISOFIELD2=subjec&CISOROOT=all&t=s n22:usrep367643.pdf n18:643 n26:injusticeforallm0000zott n16:236 n27:643.html n29: n30:dollree-mapp-who-defied-police-search-in-landmark-case-is-dead.html
owl:sameAs
n17:4rP2p dbpedia-simple:Mapp_v._Ohio freebase:m.01zglh yago-res:Mapp_v._Ohio wikidata:Q6754149
dbp:subsequent
Rehearing denied, .
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dbt:Cite_book dbt:Caselaw_source dbt:Quote dbt:Sfnp dbt:Cleveland_Division_of_Police dbt:Infobox_SCOTUS_case dbt:Ussc dbt:Snd dbt:Wikisource-inline dbt:See_also dbt:US4thAmendment dbt:Reflist dbt:Short_description dbt:Cite_journal
dbo:thumbnail
n24:Tom_C._Clark.gif?width=300
dbp:dissent
Harlan
dbp:joindissent
Frankfurter, Whittaker
dbp:joinmajority
Warren, Black, Douglas, Brennan
dbp:lawsapplied
dbr:Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution dbr:Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
dbp:oyez
n16:236
dbp:parallelcitations
17280.0
dbp:prior
17280.0
dbp:uspage
643
dbp:usvol
367
dbp:arguedate
0001-03-29
dbp:argueyear
1961
dbp:case
Mapp v. Ohio,
dbp:decidedate
0001-06-19
dbp:decideyear
1961
dbp:findlaw
n27:643.html
dbp:fullname
Dollree Mapp v. State of Ohio
dbp:holding
The Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth, excludes unconstitutionally obtained evidence from use in criminal prosecutions. Ohio Supreme Court reversed.
dbp:justia
n29:
dbp:litigants
Mapp v. Ohio
dbp:majority
Clark
dbp:source
Mapp, 367 U.S. at 657. Weeks, 232 U.S. at 391–92.
dbp:text
[O]ur holding that the exclusionary rule is an essential part of both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments is not only the logical dictate of prior cases, but it also makes very good sense. There is no war between the Constitution and common sense. Presently, a federal prosecutor may make no use of evidence illegally seized, but a State's attorney across the street may, although he supposedly is operating under the enforceable prohibitions of the same Amendment. Thus, the State, by admitting evidence unlawfully seized, serves to encourage disobedience to the Federal Constitution which it is bound to uphold. The effect of the Fourth Amendment is to put the courts of the United States and Federal officials, in the exercise of their power and authority, under limitations and restraints as to the exercise of such power and authority ... The tendency of those who execute the criminal laws of the country to obtain conviction by means of unlawful seizures ... should find no sanction in the judgments of the courts, which are charged at all times with the support of the Constitution, and to which people of all conditions have a right to appeal for the maintenance of such rights.
dbp:loc
n22:usrep367643.pdf
dbo:abstract
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the exclusionary rule, which prevents prosecutors from using evidence in court that was obtained by violating the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, applies not only to the federal government but also to the U.S. state governments. The Supreme Court accomplished this by use of a principle known as selective incorporation; in Mapp this involved the incorporation of the provisions, as interpreted by the Court, of the Fourth Amendment which is applicable only to actions of the federal government into the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause which is applicable to actions of the states.
dbp:concurrence
Black Stewart Douglas
dbp:cornell
n18:643
dbp:overturnedPreviousCase
Wolf v. Colorado
prov:wasDerivedFrom
wikipedia-en:Mapp_v._Ohio?oldid=1113833809&ns=0
dbo:wikiPageLength
17405
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
wikipedia-en:Mapp_v._Ohio