Which case extended the Exclusionary Rule to state governments?

Which case extended the Exclusionary Rule to state governments?

• A. It may be inadmissible
• B. It must always be admitted
• C. It is irrelevant
• D. It is never used

Answer: (A)

The key idea is that the Exclusionary Rule can render evidence obtained through illegal searches or seizures inadmissible in court, and this applies to state courts as well as federal courts. The case that extended this protection to the states is Mapp v. Ohio, which used the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause to incorporate the Fourth Amendment against the states. So, the correct choice reflects the practical effect: evidence obtained unlawfully may be inadmissible in state prosecutions. The other statements don’t fit because the rule does not require always admitting such evidence, it is not irrelevant to admissibility, and it is indeed used to suppress illegally obtained evidence.

The key idea is that the Exclusionary Rule can render evidence obtained through illegal searches or seizures inadmissible in court, and this applies to state courts as well as federal courts. The case that extended this protection to the states is Mapp v. Ohio, which used the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause to incorporate the Fourth Amendment against the states. So, the correct choice reflects the practical effect: evidence obtained unlawfully may be inadmissible in state prosecutions. The other statements don’t fit because the rule does not require always admitting such evidence, it is not irrelevant to admissibility, and it is indeed used to suppress illegally obtained evidence.