In 1957, three police officers showed up at the home of Dollree Mapp and demanded to be let in. They had no warrant. Ms. Mapp refused. This landmark case about privacy and unlawful search and seizure defines our protections under the 4th Amendment today.
This episode features Vince Warren, Executive Director for the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Boston University Law professor Tracey Maclin.
Episode Resources
Click here for a Graphic Organizer for students to fill out while listening to the episode
Video on the Exclusionary Rule:
Episode Segments
Transcript
Adia Samba-Quee: [00:00:02.93] Civics 101 is supported in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
A.L. Kearns: [00:00:07.46] We have a situation here rising in Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
Nick Capodice: [00:00:16.07] Hannah, I want to tell you a story about a woman in Ohio, a woman named Dalle Rehmat.
A.L. Kearns: [00:00:21.65] She is a woman without any record whatsoever from a criminal point of view.
Nick Capodice: [00:00:29.06] She lived in a quiet neighborhood in Cleveland. And one day some police officers came to her house. And before I tell you what happened next, I just want to say that people out there might think of Supreme Court cases as these stuffy procedural things. But at their heart, these cases are stories. They have a plot, characters, struggles, victory, defeat. But when it comes to epic sagas, the [00:01:00.00] case we're talking about today, Mapp v Ohio, pretty much takes the cake.
Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:05.81] Well, now you've got me curious. What is it got?
Nick Capodice: [00:01:08.63] What's it got? This case has got it all Hannah!
Nick Capodice: [00:01:11.99] And it starts with a bomb. Numbers runners. Operators. An unloaded gun. Crooked cops, pornography, a young Don King.
Don King: [00:01:24.38] I'm not trying to win a popularity contest.
Nick Capodice: [00:01:26.27] And at the center of it all, a true hero who stood in her doorway and said, if you don't have a warrant, you're not coming in. This is the case that makes the Fourth Amendment actually apply to You.
Nick Capodice: [00:01:40.24] This is Civics 101, I'm Nick Capodice.
Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:42.16] I'm Hannah McCarthy,
Nick Capodice: [00:01:43.18] And this is the first of four episodes about privacy and the Supreme Court for cases that change the rules about what the government can and can't do when it comes to your home, your locker, your purse or your body. This is Mapp v Ohio, 1961.
Vince Warren: [00:02:02.60] So [00:02:00.00] Mapp versus Ohio is a case about the police looking for a bomber and ending up arresting a woman for having porn in her basement. My name is Vince Warren. I'm the executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York City.
Tracey Maclin: [00:02:20.84] Well, there was a bombing at Don King's home in Cleveland, Ohio. The police suspected that the bomber was that Dolree Mapp's home. My name is Tracey Maclin and I am a law professor at Boston University.
Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:36.62] Pause here. Are we talking about the Don King,
Nick Capodice: [00:02:41.00] The one and only. Before he rose to fame as a boxing promoter for Muhammad Ali and others, Don King ran what was called a numbers racket in Cleveland.
Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:50.63] What's a numbers racket?
Nick Capodice: [00:02:51.74] It's like an illegal local lottery, sometimes run by a crime syndicate, sometimes far less nefarious. Numbers [00:03:00.00] Runners go around the city and they take bets on three numbers. In Cleveland, they used the closing stock market results in the evening papers to determine the winning lottery numbers. And if you pick the right trio, you could win like a couple hundred bucks.
Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:13.01] You've got Don King running a numbers racket. Somebody bombs his home and the police think the guy is it at Dolree Mapp's house.
Vince Warren: [00:03:21.59] And so they showed up at the door. They said, we're here to search the property. Dolly says, can you show me a search warrant? Now, they didn't have a search warrant. So what's a search warrant? A search warrant is when a police officer goes to a judge or a magistrate and swears out with an affidavit. Here is the probable cause to believe that we will find the things that we think that we're going to find in this house. They have to convince a court based on reasonable evidence that that would likely be the case.
Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:50.84] They want to get in, but they don't have a warrant.
Nick Capodice: [00:03:52.79] They don't. And this is the most important part. And before I tell you what happened next, I need to explain something called the exclusionary [00:04:00.00] rule, which requires a quick pivot from Cleveland and Dolly Mapp's house to a breakneck history of the Fourth Amendment in the United States. You with me?
Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:09.50] All right. I'm hedging the horses to the coach.
Nick Capodice: [00:04:11.51] All right. It all starts with this guy in 1760, one Boston lawyer and patriot, James Otis uttering a line that is heard and many social studies classroom.
James Otis: [00:04:21.26] A man's house is his castle.
Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:23.12] Hang on for a minute. Yes, James Otis did say that, but it actually started with this guy in 1604.
[00:04:33.17] That we would not understand why every man's home is his castle, why there should be due process of law, but for their framing by Sir Edward Coke.
Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:40.91] Edward Coke was a judge in England who issued a ruling saying that there were strict limitations on sheriffs entering homes and issuing writs. And his opinion called a man's home, his castle and fortress.
Nick Capodice: [00:04:54.50] Yeah, Otis took that and turned it into one of the reasons we have the Fourth Amendment. He gave a five hour [00:05:00.00] speech in a court case against what were called writs of assistance. Under British rule, a writ of assistance could be granted to give authorities the freedom to search anyone's home at any time for evidence of smuggling. And if they found anything that incriminated you in any crime whatsoever, you could go to jail. Otis, by the way, had a sad final chapter in his life. I'm not going to get into it here, but let's just say he was killed by a bolt of lightning. So we have the Fourth Amendment, the first part which says, quote, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, which sounds good. But as we have learned, every amendment looks nice on paper, but it doesn't mean much until it's tested in the courts. If the police search your home without a warrant, can they use what they find in a court of law? The exclusionary rule says that that evidence cannot be used. It is excluded.
Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:58.28] Ok, that I know pretty much [00:06:00.00] from watching TV police procedurals like a lawyer finds out that the police got evidence illegally and then that evidence cannot be used in court.
Nick Capodice: [00:06:10.55] Yeah, because it's not only that evidence that is tainted, but all other evidence found thereafter because of the first evidence is also tainted and unusable. This is referred to by a lovely lawyer term of art, fruit from a poisonous tree.
Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:26.18] How long did it take after the Fourth Amendment was ratified for the exclusionary rule to be tested in a Supreme Court case?
Nick Capodice: [00:06:33.44] 123 years. Case number one 1914, Weeks v. United States.
Nick Capodice: [00:06:39.95] Freemont Weeks was arrested by federal marshals at Union Station in Kansas City for the charge of illegally selling lottery tickets in the mail. Police officers broke into his home. They didn't have a warrant and they took all his mail, all his books and according to the court record, all his candies and clothes, they took anything that could be used as evidence.
Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:00.17] And [00:07:00.00] was the guy guilty, had he been selling lottery tickets in the mail?
Nick Capodice: [00:07:03.68] Oh, yeah, without a doubt, they found lottery stuff everywhere. They basically found a table with a bunch of envelopes and a bunch of lottery tickets.
Nick Capodice: [00:07:11.33] However, Weeks' case went to the Supreme Court where they ruled on this question, could that evidence from an illegal search be used in a case?
Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:19.61] So what did the court say? Was the evidence admissible?
Nick Capodice: [00:07:22.46] Absolutely not. A unanimous decision cementing the exclusionary rule in federal law. You can't do that for federal cases.
Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:32.91] OK, for federal cases, but not state cases.
Nick Capodice: [00:07:36.62] Right. Some states upheld what was called the Weeks rule and some didn't. And that brings us to our second case, Wolf v. Colorado, 1949, Dr. Julius Wolf was arrested in Denver for conspiracy to perform abortions. And the prosecution confiscated his appointment books without a warrant. And his case went to the Supreme Court where they were to rule on whether or not the Fourth Amendment applies [00:08:00.00] to the states.
Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:01.34] Does it?
Nick Capodice: [00:08:02.60] Yes and no. Here's Tracey Maclin again.
Tracey Maclin: [00:08:05.48] While Wolf said the Fourth Amendment applies to the states, the Wolf majority also said the exclusionary rule does not apply to the states. So that was kind of a split decision. They said, yes, states must comply with the Fourth Amendment, but they don't have to follow the exclusionary rule, which, of course, means force that really does apply to states because they know, even though we know we shouldn't be doing it, we shouldn't be violating people's rights, we shouldn't search their homes. We shouldn't stop their cars, it really doesn't matter because the evidence comes in.
Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:36.74] Therefore, states could use evidence that the authorities got without a warrant.
Nick Capodice: [00:08:42.41] They could. And there were punitive measures to discourage this. The police could be issued a fine or given a demotion. But in essence, it's left to the states to decide if they use the evidence or not. And that brings us to the home of Dollree Mapp.
Dolly Mapp: [00:08:56.18] Most of my friends call me Dolly. Very few called me Dollree. [00:09:00.00]
Nick Capodice: [00:09:00.11] The cops showed up at Mapp's door and demanded entry. Here's Vince Warren again.
Vince Warren: [00:09:04.85] And they essentially bum rushed her. She closed the door. She tried to call her lawyer. The police knocked down the door after her, refusing, allowing them to come in for lack of a warrant.
Tracey Maclin: [00:09:14.57] They showed her a piece of paper. She grabbed the paper from one of the officers and as the court described, later stuck it in her bosom. There was a physical encounter in which the cops retrieved the paper. Eventually, it was clear that there was no warrant.
Vince Warren: [00:09:31.31] They put her in handcuffs, they dragged her upstairs and they ransacked the house, purportedly looking for this bomber. Now, they didn't find the bomber. He wasn't there, but they did find in a trunk in the basement some point and they ended up arresting her not for harboring a bomber, but for having porn in her basement.
Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:54.47] I just I'm so curious. Can you give me any gyrated specifics on what they found in [00:10:00.00] the basement?
Tracey Maclin: [00:10:03.77] The search revealed four books: Affairs of a Troubador, Little Darlings, London Stage Affairs and memories of a hotel man and a hand drawn picture, all of which were allegedly obscene.
Nick Capodice: [00:10:16.82] In a later interview, Dolly said that these books and an unloaded pistol that the cops found these belonged to a former tenant. She didn't think she was in any trouble, but nevertheless, she was arrested.
Tracey Maclin: [00:10:27.47] She was eventually sentenced to prison and given a seven year indeterminate sentence based on the obscenity that was found in her home.
Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:35.72] Seven years? And how does a case about owning lewd comic books become a landmark Fourth Amendment opinion?
Vince Warren: [00:10:43.40] The Mapp v Ohio case is an interesting map, if you will, of how legal issues can be intertwined with each other. Again, it started out as a search for a bomber. It went to the Supreme Court as an obscenity case, and then [00:11:00.00] it ended up being a broad Fourth Amendment case that really set the stage for how we defined privacy rights versus the police. And the way that that flip was that the court looked at the question of the obscenity conviction. But you can't really look at that without looking at the nature of the evidence and how it was obtained.
Nick Capodice: [00:11:20.75] You remember, Wolf v Colorado?
Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:22.13] Yeah, that's the one that said that states can decide if they follow the exclusionary rule.
Nick Capodice: [00:11:25.70] The justice who wrote that opinion was also on the bench during the map trial. And in the oral argument, one justice asked the advocate for Mapp.
[00:11:35.03] That means you're asking us to overrule Wolf against Colorado?
Nick Capodice: [00:11:38.39] And the advocate is like,
A.L. Kearns: [00:11:39.89] No, I don't believe we are, all that we're asking...
Nick Capodice: [00:11:43.55] So he wants to keep this as a case about this antiquated obscenity law. But then a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union is allowed to give what's called an amicus curiae brief. That means an interested party. A friend of the court, amicus curiae briefs are from people not [00:12:00.00] directly involved with the case, but deeply interested and affected by the outcome. And this lawyer from ACLU says.
Bernard Berkman: [00:12:06.41] In response to a question which was directed to counsel for the settlement, that we are asking this court to reconsider Wolf versus Colorado.
Vince Warren: [00:12:18.05] And so the broader question is that I think reaches beyond both bombing and obscenity is how do we make sure that the police officers are complying with the Fourth Amendment? Because if police officers don't police officers don't comply with the Fourth Amendment, we essentially have no Fourth Amendment protections under the Constitution. So the court was really looking at the idea that police officers cannot use the Fourth Amendment as an on off switch, that they can just turn it off when they want to go into somebody else's house and then they can turn it back on at some point, at some later date.
Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:52.10] All right. Do don't leave me hanging. How did the court rule the verdict?
Nick Capodice: [00:12:55.79] In the case of Mapp v. Ohio, the court rules in favor of Dolly [00:13:00.00] map. In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled via interpreting the Fourth Amendment and the due process clause in the 14th Amendment, which is called the incorporation doctrine, that the Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary rule are both incorporated, which mean they now apply to the states, all the states, all of us, all the time. And there you have it.
Hannah McCarthy: [00:13:24.86] I can see why you love this case. It's fascinating. There's so much drama, so many macguffins. You know what macguffins are right.
Hannah McCarthy: [00:13:30.89] Yeah. You've told me about macguffins quite a few times. It's like a red herring.
Nick Capodice: [00:13:34.79] Yeah. It's like the plot device that Alfred Hitchcock is famous for. It's the thing you think the movie's about isn't actually important at all. But the porn and the gun and the bombing suspect, they were all mcguffins. The police found the suspect, by the way. He was staying at Mapp's house, but he was quickly found not guilty of any involvement in the bombing whatsoever.
Hannah McCarthy: [00:13:52.13] All right. So I always want to know when looking at any Supreme Court case, how does this case affect me? How does Mapp [00:14:00.00] v. Ohio resonate today in modern courts?
Nick Capodice: [00:14:04.49] This is something Vince brought up at the end of our interview. So first off, there are now, 50 years later, myriad exceptions to the exclusionary rule. This is how states can pass stop and frisk laws, for example, or use the automobile exception to use evidence from searching your car without a warrant. And most of all, what can and does happen when you do what Dollree Mapp did, when you say "no."
Vince Warren: [00:14:32.03] And so, for example, walking down the street, if a police officer asks you to do the hokey pokey and turn yourself around, you can say, no, I'm not going to do that. There's no reasonable basis to ask me to do that. And under the Fourth Amendment, you're absolutely right. That's a seizure and that they can't ask you to do that. However, you do pay a price by not complying with the police officers in this day and age, particularly if you're Black and Brown. So in some ways, the [00:15:00.00] challenge of Dolly Mapp is still with us. With people walking down the street today, we can always say, no, you're not going to do that. But as we've seen recently, these types of situations can escalate so quickly and so violently and sometimes even leading to death that it makes us think, does the Fourth Amendment actually really protect us in the way that the framers intended as a as a shield against unlawful police activity? Or is it something that courts are going to look at as a mere inconvenience to what is essentially a law enforcement tactic that they ultimately support? And these are questions that we're confronting in our society today.
Nick Capodice: [00:15:49.85] Mapp v Ohio, nineteen sixty one. We got lots of other Supreme Court cases coming up in the next few weeks, so stay tuned. And if any of you are curious about the exclusionary rule and its exceptions, [00:16:00.00] we made a fun little video on our website, civics101podcast.org.
Nick Capodice: [00:16:10.70] Today's episode was produced by me, Nick Capodice with You Hannah McCarthy, thank you.
Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:15.44] Oh, you're welcome. Our staff includes Jackie Fulton. Erika Janik is our executive producer and runs the numbers for two Pillsbury.
Nick Capodice: [00:16:21.71] Music in this episode by Scott Holmes, Randy Butternubbs, Eric Kilkenny, KiLoKaz, Blue Dot Sessions and Alex Ball, who composed this wonderful 70s cop themed show music you're hearing right now. You can check him out on Spotify.
Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:34.85] Civics 101 is made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and is a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.
