-
1 Mapp v. Ohio
"Мэпп против штата Огайо"Дело в Верховном суде США [ Supreme Court, U.S.], решение по которому (1961) определило, что судам всех уровней запрещается использовать в судебном процессе вещественные доказательства, полученные незаконным путем. Этим решением было отменено решение суда (1949) по делу "Вольф против штата Колорадо" [Wolf v. Colorado].English-Russian dictionary of regional studies > Mapp v. Ohio
-
2 exclusionary rule
юрПравило, по которому вещественные доказательства/улики, полученные путем незаконного обыска или ареста, не могут быть использованы в судебном процессе. Основано на положении Четвертой поправки [ Fourth Amendment], запрещающей "необоснованные обыски и аресты" ["unreasonable searches and seizures"]. Это правило было установлено Верховным судом [ Supreme Court, U.S.] для федеральных судов [ federal court] в 1914 в деле "Уикс против США" [Weeks v. United States] и для судов штатов в деле "Мэпп против штата Огайо" [ Mapp v. Ohio]. Позже это правило Верховный суд также ограничил в деле "США против Каландры" [United States v. Calandra] (1974), определив, что оно не распространяется на заседания большого жюри [ grand jury], на которых заслушиваются показания свидетелей относительно незаконных улик, а в деле "США против Хейвенса" [United States v. Havens] (1980) суд разрешил использовать незаконно полученные улики для опровержения показаний обвиняемогоEnglish-Russian dictionary of regional studies > exclusionary rule
См. также в других словарях:
Mapp v. Ohio — Supreme Court of the United States Argued March 29, 1961 Decided June 19, 1961 … Wikipedia
Mapp v. Ohio — (1961) A U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that evidence obtained by illegal search and seizure could not be introduced in state or federal trials. Category: Criminal Law → Rights of Suspects & Defendants Nolo’s Plain English Law… … Law dictionary
Mapp v. Ohio — Landmark Supreme Court case decided in 1961 in which it was ruled that evidence illegally obtained by state officers is not admissible in a state trial if appropriate motions are filed to suppress. The rationale for the rule is that the 4th… … Black's law dictionary
Mapp v. Ohio — Landmark Supreme Court case decided in 1961 in which it was ruled that evidence illegally obtained by state officers is not admissible in a state trial if appropriate motions are filed to suppress. The rationale for the rule is that the 4th… … Black's law dictionary
History of Cleveland, Ohio — This article chronicles the history of Cleveland, Ohio.Pre history At the end of the last glacial period, which ended about 15000 years ago at the southern edge of Lake Erie, there was a tundra landscape. [Cp. [http://ech.case.edu/ech cgi/article … Wikipedia
Terry v. Ohio — SCOTUSCase Litigants=Terry v. Ohio ArgueDate=December 12 ArgueYear=1967 DecideDate=June 10 DecideYear=1968 FullName=John W. Terry v. State of Ohio USVol=392 USPage=1 Citation=88 S. Ct. 1868; 20 L. Ed. 2d 889; 1968 U.S. LEXIS 1345; 44 Ohio Op. 2d… … Wikipedia
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution — US Constitution article seriesThe Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights. The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, and was designed as a response to the… … Wikipedia
Mancusi v. DeForte — Supreme Court of the United States Argued April 25, 1968 Decided June 17, 1968 … Wikipedia
Wolf v. Colorado — SCOTUSCase Litigants=Wolf v. Colorado ArgueDate=October 19 ArgueYear=1948 DecideDate=June 27 DecideYear=1949 FullName=Julius A. Wolf v. State of Colorado USVol=338 USPage=25 Citation=69 S. Ct. 1359; 93 L. Ed. 1782; 1949 U.S. LEXIS 2079… … Wikipedia
Marcus v. Search Warrant — Supreme Court of the United States Argued March 30, 1961 Decided June 19, 19 … Wikipedia
Warren Court — The Warren Court (1953 1969) represents a period in the history of the Supreme Court of the United States that was marked by one of the starkest and most dramatic changes in judicial power and philosophy. Led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, the… … Wikipedia
