Activity In 1961, the police suspected Dollree Mapp of hiding a suspect linked with a bombing. Officers visited Mapp's house in Cleveland, Ohlo, looking for the suspect in order to question him. Mapp refused to let the police Into her house because they did not have a search warrant The police officers remained outside her home, and when more officers appeared at Mapp's home, they forcefully entered the house.When Mapp demanded to see their search warrant, they showed her a piece of paper, but refused to let her read It. After searching the house, the police found a trunk full of pernographic material in the basement. Despite her protests they arrested Mapp and charged her with violating an Ohlo state law on the possession of obscene material At the time of the trial, the police officers refused to show Mapp's defense lawyer the search warrant, which they supposedly used to enter and search the defendant's house. The court found Mapp guilty and sent her to prison. She appealed her case to the Ohlo Supreme Court, but they upheld her conviction.Then Mapp appealed to the US Supreme Court who heard her case four years after her original conviction. What verdict must the US Supreme Court give if they cc consider er the rules of evidence? Give an explanation that supports your answer.

## Step 1<br />The problem revolves around the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. In this case, the police officers did not have a search warrant when they entered and searched Dollree Mapp's house.<br /><br />## Step 2<br />The evidence obtained from the search, which was a trunk full of pornographic material, was used to convict Mapp. However, this evidence was obtained in violation of her constitutional rights, as the police officers did not have a search warrant.<br /><br />## Step 3<br />The exclusionary rule, a legal principle in the United States, states that evidence obtained in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is not admissible in court. This rule is intended to deter law enforcement from violating citizens' constitutional rights.<br /><br />## Step 4<br />In this case, the police officers violated Mapp's Fourth Amendment rights by entering and searching her house without a search warrant. Therefore, the evidence obtained from the search, the trunk full of pornographic material, should be excluded from the trial.<br /><br />## Step 5<br />If the US Supreme Court were to consider the rules of evidence, they would likely rule in favor of Mapp. This would mean that the evidence obtained from the search would be excluded from the trial, as it was obtained in violation of her constitutional rights.