I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy here: [ Ссылка ]

Patreon: [ Ссылка ]
Mr. Beat's band: [ Ссылка ]
Mr. Beat on Twitter: [ Ссылка ]

In episode 32 of Supreme Court Briefs, police break into a home of a citizen and later charge her with having sexually explicit material.

Music by Isaac Sander.

Check out cool primary sources here:
[ Ссылка ]


Other sources used:
[ Ссылка ]
[ Ссылка ]
[ Ссылка ]
[ Ссылка ]
[ Ссылка ]
[ Ссылка ]
[ Ссылка ]

Photo credits:
Shawn Lea
Mikerussell
Nick Youngson

Cleveland, Ohio
May 23, 1957

Someone sets a bomb off at Don King’s house. Yep, that Don King, the future boxer promoter who at the time was a controversial bookie who had many enemies. So yeah, apparently one of those enemies was whoever bombed his house that day. The Cleveland police got a tip that a another bookie named Virgil Ogletree might have been involved with the bombing, and that he was hiding out in the house of Dollree Mapp. They also suspected stuff to make a bomb might be at the house.

Three Cleveland police officers get to Mapp’s house, knock on the door and she answers. They ask to enter, but Mapp says “you gotta warrant?” After the police say no, she refuses to let them in. Two of the officers leave, but one hangs out across the street to stake out the place. Three hours later, even more officers return and knock on her door. This time Mapp doesn’t answer, and they break down the door and enter without permission. Mapp asks again to see a warrant. One of the officers shows her a piece of paper that is supposedly the warrant. She snatches the paper and puts it in her blouse. The officer reaches inside her clothing and she resists while he tries to get it back. He eventually does it get it back, and that piece of paper is never seen again.

The police handcuffed Mapp and continued to search her home. They did find Ogletree, who later was cleared of being connected to the bombing, but while they were looking for him they also found evidence of illegal gambling, a pistol, and a small collection of sexually explicit materials that a previous resident had left behind.

The Cleveland police arrested Mapp for having the gambling stuff but was later cleared. However, she didn’t cooperate with authorities very well, and several months later they turned around and charged her with having the sexually explicit materials, which apparently was illegal in Ohio at the time. Illegal, Mr. Beat? Yes, in 1957 it was illegal to possess “obscene materials.” Mapp was found guilty and sentenced to up to seven years in prison.

Mapp appealed to the Ohio Court of Appeals for the Eighth District, arguing that the Ohio law banning the possession of obscene material went against the First Amendment. But what about the Fourth Amendment, Mr. Beat? (weird voice) Well, surprisingly, the Fourth Amendment wasn’t Mapp’s focus, but she could have also said that the police broke the Fourth Amendment when they searched through her stuff. Specifically, the police had no probable cause to suspect her of having the sexually explicit books, and they couldn’t use the books as evidence in court because they were found without a warrant. In addition, Mapp could have argued to get the 4th Amendment applied to both the state and local level, not just the federal level.

The Ohio Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court, so Mapp appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court. They also agreed, so she appealed to the Supreme uh Supreme Court. By this time, 4 years had passed since the police had raided Mapp’s home. The Court heard oral arguments on March 29, 1961.

It was soon apparent that the Court didn’t give a darn about the First Amendment...in this case. Lemme finish. They didn’t give a darn about the First Amendment IN THIS CASE. Instead, they were all focused on the 4th amendment. You see, there was this law called the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule said you couldn’t use evidence if the police got it illegally. It had been applied since 1914 in the ruling for the case Weeks v. United States, but only at the federal level. In the 1949 decision Wolf v. Colorado, the Court had declined to extend exclusionary protections at the state level.

On June 19, 1961, the Court announced its decision.

свернуть