Exclusionary rule (Mapp v. Ohio) intended to discourage unlawful police practices.

• A. It discourages unlawful police practices by excluding evidence obtained through illegal searches
• B. It discourages only some practices
• C. It applies only to federal cases
• D. It is unrelated to search and seizure

Answer: (A)

The key idea is deterrence through evidence exclusion. The exclusionary rule says courts must not admit evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, with the aim of stopping police from conducting illegal searches or seizures. Originally, Weeks v. United States established this for federal cases, and Mapp v. Ohio extended it to state prosecutions by applying the Fourth Amendment to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. So the rule operates in both federal and state courts, reinforcing the deterrent effect. That makes the best choice describe it as discouraging unlawful police practices by excluding evidence obtained through illegal searches. The other statements aren’t correct because the rule applies to both federal and state cases, is about searches and seizures, and targets unlawful conduct broadly rather than only some practices.