Dollree Mapp

Dollree Mapp (October 30, 1923 – October 31, 2014) was the appellant in the Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio (1961).

She argued that her right to privacy in her home, the Fourth Amendment, was violated by police officers who entered her house with what she thought to be a fake search warrant.

Mapp also argued that the Exclusionary Rule was violated due to the collection of the evidence that was found after the police had entered her house without a convincing search warrant according to Mapp's experience.

In the Supreme Court case, Mapp v. Ohio, the decision was made in favor of Mapp, in a 6–3 ruling.

As a result of the ruling in Mapp v. Ohio, Mapp's conviction was voided.

A few years after Mapp v. Ohio was ruled upon, Mapp was convicted again, but this time for the possession of narcotics.

After her prison sentence had ended, she began working "for a non-profit that provided legal assistance to inmates."

In May 1957, following a bombing at the home of future boxing promoter Don King, police received a tip leading them to the home of Dollree Mapp.

The police "showed up at Mapp's place, demanding to be let in."

Mapp refused and was advised by her lawyer to request a search warrant.

The police left and returned in around 15 minutes, forcing their way into her house by breaking the door.

The police would not show Mapp the search warrant, causing Mapp to believe the warrant was blank.

She took the warrant and put it in her blouse so the police would not take it.

However, one of the officers “went down anyway,” and took the paper from Mapp.

The officer found evidence of pornography in Mapp's house.

As a result, Mapp was "charged under an Ohio law that made possession of obscene material a felony."

Mapp was sentenced with 7 years in prison.

While on bond, however, she appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, which rejected her case.

She then appealed to the U.S Supreme Court "on the basis of freedom of expression" and they accepted her case.

The Supreme Court Justices all "drew laughs from the courtroom gallery while leaving no doubt how absurd they found Ohio’s obscenity statute."

Initially, there was unanimous agreement that the Ohio obscenity law was not in line with the First Amendment.

However, when the argument was altered to focus on the Fourth Amendment by Justice Clark, only 5 justices decided that the evidence taken from Mapp's home, without a search warrant, was "illegally obtained."

In addition, the materials the officers had found, Mapp pleaded, were her roommate's obscene materials and commented saying, "Look at what terrible things men read. Let’s put it away."

This case's overarching question was, "Were the confiscated materials protected from seizure by the Fourth Amendment?"

As a result of the Mapp opinion, the Supreme Court extended the obtainment of illegal evidence rule to the states.

The case was argued on March 29, 1961, and decided on June 19, 1961.

In Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional to use the evidence of pornography gathered from the police officers when they illegally searched Mapp's house.

This ruling was based on the protection from "an unreasonable search or seizure" stated in the Fourth Amendment.

However, the exclusionary rule is not cited in the Constitution, but rather a Supreme Court implication.

The Supreme Court "found that the Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law and the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures could not be properly enforced as long as illegally obtained evidence continued to be presented in court."

This realization of the Court is what allowed Dollree Mapp and her lawyer to make a "motion to suppress" the evidence.

In other words, having the judge determine whether the evidence was gathered legally.

In Mapp's case it was not, so the evidence was not included in the trial.

In the majority opinion, the Supreme Court "recognized that the purpose of the exclusionary rule "is to deter - to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only effectively available way - by removing the incentive to disregard it." However, the Court makes an effort to say that it is not the exclusionary rule which sets the appellant free, "it is the law that sets him free." In Mapp v. Ohio, when Mapp's conviction was overturned it was due to the fact that the law "gives to the individual no more than that which the Constitution guarantees him." Mapp v. Ohio, Gideon v. Wainwright, and Miranda v. Arizona, were all major cases that had large effects on policing and search warrant requirements thereafter.

Dollree Mapp moved to New York after her Supreme Court case.

In 1971, Mapp was arrested and sentenced to 8 years in prison for the possession of heroin.

After serving prison time in the Bedford Hills Correctional Facility for Women, Mapp worked for a non-profit that "provided legal assistance to inmates."

She also worked as a talented seamstress and dressmaker, in addition to other businesses, such as beauty and upholstery.

Her niece Carolyn Mapp stated that some of her aunt's businesses "were legitimate, and some of them were whatever they were.” Mapp also spoke at law schools and about her SCOTUS case. Later in 1987, she was interviewed by a political science professor and the book was later published.

Dollree Mapp was the sole survivor of her immediate relatives after her daughter Barbara died in 2002.