Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

RIP Dollree Mapp, who’s the reason police have to get search warrants

Dollree Mapp’s 1957 mug shot.
Dollree Mapp’s 1957 mug shot.
Dollree Mapp’s 1957 mug shot.
Cleveland Memory Project
  1. Dollree Mapp, the Cleveland woman who successfully checked police power in a landmark US Supreme Court case, died on October 31 at the age of 90 or 91, according to the New York Times.
  2. Police tried to enter Mapp’s home without a warrant to look for a man wanted for questioning about a bombing. But she challenged the search — and her eventual arrest — in a court case that led to a major Supreme Court decision in 1961.
  3. Police arrested Mapp for sexually explicit materials found in the home, and she was sentenced to prison on obscenity charges. But the Supreme Court threw out the conviction, deciding that courts must suppress evidence gathered through police misconduct — in this case, a warrantless search — in certain kinds of cases.

The ruling checked police power at the state level

US Supreme Court

The US Supreme Court. (Saul Loeb / AFP via Getty Images)

Before the Supreme Court’s decision, only federal courts threw out evidence gathered illegally by police. The Supreme Court decision in Mapp v. Ohio cited the Fourth Amendment to extend that rule — known as the exclusionary rule — to state courts, explained the New York Times.

“The state, by admitting evidence unlawfully seized, serves to encourage disobedience to the federal Constitution which it is bound to uphold,” Justice Tom Clark wrote in the majority opinion.

The exclusionary rule has been a topic of controversy in legal circles. As a judge, former Justice Benjamin Cardozo said, “The criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered.” Former President Ronald Reagan also criticized the rule, claiming that it relies on the “absurd proposition that a law enforcement error, no matter how technical, can be used to justify throwing out an entire case.”

Later court rulings carved exceptions to the rule — particularly in cases in which police made errors while acting in good faith, receiving incorrect legal guidance, or relying on bad information from another agency.

Some legal watchers worry the rule could be further watered down or even abolished by the current Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts worked under the Reagan administration to undermine the exclusionary rule, according to the Times.

But for now, the exclusionary rule remains a key check on police misconduct — and Americans have Mapp’s belligerence, as police called her behavior at the time, to thank for that.

Policy
Is Trump’s Justice Department trying to discredit itself?Is Trump’s Justice Department trying to discredit itself?
Policy

The DOJ used to avoid spectacles like the Louise Lucas raid.

By Ian Millhiser
Politics
What the Supreme Court still has left to decide this termWhat the Supreme Court still has left to decide this term
Politics

Democracy and Donald Trump dominate the Court’s remaining docket.

By Ian Millhiser
Politics
The Supreme Court seems a bit nervous about letting the police track you with your phoneThe Supreme Court seems a bit nervous about letting the police track you with your phone
Politics

The justices were concerned that the Trump administration is asking for too much in a major police surveillance case.

By Ian Millhiser
Politics
The Supreme Court will decide when the police can use your phone to track youThe Supreme Court will decide when the police can use your phone to track you
Politics

Chatrie v. United States asks what limits the Constitution places on the surveillance state in an age of cellphones.

By Ian Millhiser
Policy
Pam Bondi’s ouster makes Trump’s Justice Department even more dangerousPam Bondi’s ouster makes Trump’s Justice Department even more dangerous
Policy

The best thing about Bondi was her incompetence.

By Ian Millhiser
Culture
Me Too revealed a lot of villains. Why is Epstein the one we still care about?Me Too revealed a lot of villains. Why is Epstein the one we still care about?
Culture

How the Epstein story became an American parable.

By Constance Grady