1. This list highlights some facts from a U.S.Supreme Court during the 1960 s. Mapp v. Ohio (1966) Police officers forcibly entered a house without a warrant. - Officers arrestedhouse owner Dollree Mapp for have illegal photographs - Mapp appealed to the Supreme Court, saying that her constitutional liberties had been violated - The Supreme Court decided in favor of Mapp. Based on the facts of this case and your knowledge of constitutional rights, which outcome resulted from this U.S. Supreme Court decision? Constitutional guarantees of due process in criminal trials were increased. Constitutional protections against unlawtu searches and seizures were expanded. Constitutional assurances of the right to an attorney were expanded. Constitutional safeguards a against excessive bail and fines were increased

Question

1. This list highlights some facts from a U.S.Supreme Court during the 1960 s. Mapp v. Ohio (1966) Police officers forcibly entered a house without a warrant. - Officers arrestedhouse owner Dollree Mapp for have illegal photographs - Mapp appealed to the Supreme Court, saying that her constitutional liberties had been violated - The Supreme Court decided in favor of Mapp. Based on the facts of this case and your knowledge of constitutional rights, which outcome resulted from this U.S. Supreme Court decision? Constitutional guarantees of due process in criminal trials were increased. Constitutional protections against unlawtu searches and seizures were expanded. Constitutional assurances of the right to an attorney were expanded. Constitutional safeguards a against excessive bail and fines were increased

Answer 1

B. Constitutional protections against unlawful searches and seizures were expanded.

Answer 2

## Step 1The problem presents a case, Mapp v. Ohio (1966), where police officers forcibly entered a house without a warrant. The house owner, Dollree Mapp, was arrested for having illegal photographs. She appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that her constitutional liberties had been violated.## Step 2The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mapp, which means that the court found her argument valid and agreed with her claim that her constitutional liberties had been violated.## Step 3The question asks us to determine which constitutional right was expanded as a result of this Supreme Court decision. The options provided are:- Constitutional guarantees of due process in criminal trials were increased.- Constitutional protections against unlawful searches and seizures were expanded.- Constitutional assurances of the right to an attorney were expanded.- Constitutional safeguards against excessive bail and fines were increased.## Step 4Given the facts of the case, the Supreme Court's decision would have expanded the constitutional protections against unlawful searches and seizures. This is because the case involved a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Problemas

Roztwór

Respuesta

Explicación