Which case applied the Exclusionary Rule to state courts through incorporation by the Fourteenth Amendment?

Which case applied the Exclusionary Rule to state courts through incorporation by the Fourteenth Amendment?

• A. Mapp v. Ohio
• B. Katz v. United States
• C. Wong Sun v. United States
• D. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette

Answer: (A)

This question tests how the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures were applied to state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment’s incorporation doctrine. Mapp v. Ohio (1961) is the case that does this, holding that the Exclusionary Rule—which bars illegally obtained evidence from being used in court—applies in state prosecutions as well as federal ones. This decision overruled Wolf v. Colorado’s suggestion that the rule only limited federal authorities and signaled a shift to using the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to incorporate this protection against the states. Katz v. United States centers on the right to privacy and how the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places, but it doesn’t address applying the Exclusionary Rule to the states. Wong Sun v. United States discusses the exclusionary rule in a federal context, focusing on the “fruit of the poisonous tree” and evidence obtained through unlawful searches, but it is not the case that extended incorporation to the states. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette involves compelled speech and the First Amendment, not the Fourth Amendment or incorporation. Thus, the case that best fits the prompt—thereby applying the Exclusionary Rule to state courts via the Fourteenth Amendment—is Mapp v. Ohio.

This question tests how the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures were applied to state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment’s incorporation doctrine. Mapp v. Ohio (1961) is the case that does this, holding that the Exclusionary Rule—which bars illegally obtained evidence from being used in court—applies in state prosecutions as well as federal ones. This decision overruled Wolf v. Colorado’s suggestion that the rule only limited federal authorities and signaled a shift to using the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to incorporate this protection against the states.

Katz v. United States centers on the right to privacy and how the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places, but it doesn’t address applying the Exclusionary Rule to the states. Wong Sun v. United States discusses the exclusionary rule in a federal context, focusing on the “fruit of the poisonous tree” and evidence obtained through unlawful searches, but it is not the case that extended incorporation to the states. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette involves compelled speech and the First Amendment, not the Fourth Amendment or incorporation. Thus, the case that best fits the prompt—thereby applying the Exclusionary Rule to state courts via the Fourteenth Amendment—is Mapp v. Ohio.