In this case, police searched the home of appellant without a warrant. They seized obscene materials and arrested appellant. She was convicted of possession of lewd and lascivious materials in violation of state law. She appealed, claiming that evidence was obtained as a result of an illegal search and therefore should have been excluded at trial. The state claimed that even if the search was unreasonable, it should not be prevented from using the evidence at trial. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that the exclusionary rule applied to states.
1. Summarize the facts in the Mapp case.
2. What is the legal issue in Mapp?
3. How did the Court use the exclusionary rule in this case?