Which case significantly impacted the admissibility of evidence in court?

Mapp v. Ohio is a landmark case that fundamentally changed the way evidence is treated in the context of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in state courts. This principle, known as the "exclusionary rule," means that if law enforcement officials conduct a search without a warrant or probable cause, any evidence they gather may be deemed inadmissible in court.

The ruling in Mapp v. Ohio was significant because it extended the exclusionary rule, which had previously been applied primarily in federal courts, to state courts as well. This has had a profound and enduring impact on law enforcement practices, the judicial system, and the rights of individuals. It emphasizes the importance of following legal protocols during searches and the consequences of failing to do so, thereby ensuring a level of accountability for police practices.

The other options involve important judicial principles and rights as well, but they focus on different aspects of law enforcement, such as stop-and-frisk procedures or the rights of the accused during interrogations. They do not, however, directly relate to the broader issue of how evidence is admissible in court, making Mapp v