other than governmental agencies; as against such authority it was the purpose of the Fourth Amendment to secure the citizen in the right of unmolested occupation of his dwelling and the possession of his property, * This doctrine has never been reexamined by the Supreme Court and is still followed today. The cases of Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 80 S.Ct. 1437, 4 L.Ed. 2d 1669 (1960) (rejecting the “silver platter” doctrine and holding that evidence obtained by state police from a search and seizure which would be unconstitutional if similarly conducted by federal officers could not be used in federal courts even though the federal authorities did not participate in the search and seizure), and Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081, 84 A.L.R.2d 933 (1961) (<HOLDING>), do not overrule the holding of Burdeau,
holding that the fourth amendment proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures was applicable to the states under the fourteenth amendment so that evidence seized in violation of the constitution could no longer be used in state courts holding all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the constitution is by that same authority inadmissible in a state court holding that forfeiture statute is subject to the fourth amendments prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures holding sbm is not a violation of the defendants fourth amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures holding the sixth amendment applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment