" (Berman & Murphy, 2003, 470) The difficult part of upholding this constitutional right is determining what is meant by "reasonable expectation," and how the validity of a police officer's probable cause can be determined. .
Starting in the 1960s, the Supreme Court extended and clarified the protections of the Fourth Amendment. The Warren Court initiated a line of defendant's rights rulings in Supreme Court cases with the Mapp v. Ohio decision in 1961. (Berman & Murphy, 2003, 471) In this case, police officers searched the residence of Dollree Mapp without a warrant. The police did not find what they were looking for but came across some obscene materials and arrested Mapp for the possession of such materials. The Court's 5-3 decision to make the exclusionary rule part of the Fourth Amendment and incorporate it into the Fourteenth Amendment established that evidence that was gathered illegally was not admissible in court. The Warren Court also ruled in favor of expanding the circumstances where police can use evidence that is uncovered without a warrant in Terry v. Ohio. This case established that if an officer had probable cause to frisk a suspect and evidence was found, that evidence is admissible in court because the initial frisk was reasonable. (Berman & Murphy, 2003, p. 473) United States v. Leon in 1984 further complicates the issue of whether police officers have the authority to conduct a search for evidence due to the good faith exemption. Good faith applies to evidence gathered which would not be admissible in court due to a reasonable expectation of privacy, but if the officers believe that they have valid permission to search a location and find incriminating evidence, then the evidence is admissible (Ely, 1996, 229-230). .
The Right to Equal Protection Under the Law.
The Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution attempt to protect the defendant from the tyranny of the government and its executive powers.