The issue of the case was that could a …show more content…
The court stated that the exclusionary rule also applies to states, meaning that states cannot use evidence gained by illegal means to convict someone. Clark argued that the Fourth Amendment strictly implies that the use of evidence obtained in violation of the amendment is unconstitutional. Furthermore this overturned the Wolf ruling, the Supreme Court had found that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against “police incursion into privacy” is incorporate if the right to privacy is incorporated. He also went on explaining the courts rationale based on the connection between the Fourth and the Fourteenth amendment when saying that since the Fourth amendment is a right of privacy and has been declared enforceable through the Fourteenth then it is enforceable against them by the same sanction of exclusion. The court believed that if the right to privacy stated in the Fourth amendment is valid with regard to action by the states they so should be exclusionary