Final answer:
The Supreme Court in Mapp v. Ohio ruled that evidence obtained through an unreasonable search and seizure cannot be used in state court proceedings, upholding the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment and establishing the exclusionary rule.
Step-by-step explanation:
According to the Supreme Court in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure for a prosecution in a state court for a state crime. This landmark decision established the principle that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, is inadmissible in state courts. The case underscored the protection of privacy and the importance of procedural justice in criminal law, ensuring that evidence presented in courts is acquired through lawful means and reflecting a broader constitutional commitment to upholding individual rights against government overreach.
The exclusionary rule was also solidified through this case, indicating that not only is direct evidence obtained illegally inadmissible, but also any evidence that is later developed as a consequence of the illegal search or seizure.