Search and Seizure: Mapp v. Ohio

The case of Mapp v. Ohio might seem like it was made for TV. Look at this... it's got a bomb. Gambling, a world famous boxing promoter, a determined heroine and a cop who breaks the rules when they get in his way. But to people that study the Constitution, what makes Mapp v. Ohio really exciting is the Fourth Amendment.

FOURTH AMENDMENT IS VITAL. THE FOURTH AMENDMENT REQUIRES THAT WE BE FREE FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. The Fourth Amendment gives us a right to privacy, preventing government from searching or taking us, our homes, papers or property without a good reason. It says so right here. The government has to show probable cause that is, a good reason to suspect that you've done something wrong. And in many cases, it has to issue a warrant to put its reasons and what it's looking for down in writing. THAT PROTECTS YOU FROM THE POLICE OR FROM THE GOVERNMENT GENERALLY INVADING YOUR PRIVACY. IT REALLY IS AN ESSENTIAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE.

But there's a problem; the Constitution doesn't exactly say how to make sure this right is enforced. Back in 1957, Dolly Mapp thought she knew. I HAD TO STAND UP FOR MY RIGHTS. She did. And when the police rang Dolly Mapp's doorbell they had no idea they were about to open the door to a new era in American civil liberties. But they did have a pretty good idea they were going to get a fight from Dolly Mapp. I COULD NOT JUST IGNORE THIS. MY FREEDOM WAS AT STAKE.

Before dawn on May 20, 1957, a small bomb went off at this house in Cleveland, Ohio. (SFX) The owner of the house, Donald King, wasn't hurt, but he was pretty scared and he called the police to investigate. DON KING WAS WELL KNOWN TO LAW ENFORCEMENT. HE WAS SUSPECTED OF RUNNING AN ILLEGAL GAMBLING BUSINESS, KNOWN AS THE NUMBERS GAME. The numbers game was essentially a lottery long before lotteries were run by states. In 1957, this kind of gambling was highly illegal. Sometimes that led to violence between the people called clearinghouse operators. THE CLEARINGHOUSE OPERATOR IS THE ONE WHO SORT OF OVERSEES THE WHOLE OPERATION. And Donald King, who later became world famous as Don King, promoter of Muhammad Ali and other boxing champions, not to mention that hair... young Donald King had a record and a number of encounters with police over the numbers game. So when his house was bombed, he called the division of the police department he knew personally. HE CALLED THE BUREAU OF SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS. This division was in charge of cracking down on the numbers game, and it was headed by Detective Carl Delau. Carl Delau was not just an 11-year veteran of the Cleveland police department, but a World War II vet as well. A hard-nosed cop, he didn't like people he thought were connected to the numbers game, and he figured King's house was bombed by one of them. WHEN THE POLICE WERE INVESTIGATING THIS THERE WERE A NUMBER OF OTHER RACKETEERS WHO THEY SUSPECTED OF INVOLVEMENT IN THIS BOMBING.

Three days after the bombing, Delau got a tip that a possible suspect might be hiding in a house on Milverton Road. He knew who lived there... Dollree Mapp. HE HAD SUSPECTED THAT SHE WAS INVOLVED IN GAMING FOR SOME TIME. Dollree Mapp... MOST OF MY FRIENDS CALL ME DOLLY. VERY FEW CALLED ME DOLLREE. Okay... Dolly Mapp was known around town. Tough, outgoing and driven, she was married to local boxing star Jimmy Bivins. Later she was engaged to World Light Heavyweight Champion Archie Moore. She owned this house in Shaker Heights, one of Cleveland's nicest neighborhoods, living upstairs and renting out the basement. She was a fighter then, and she's a fighter now. SHE'S A VERY DETERMINED PERSON. SHE DOESN'T SUFFER FOOLS. SHE'S VERY FORTHRIGHT. IN MANY RESPECTS SHE WAS A WOMAN AHEAD OF HER TIME. I TOOK CARE OF MYSELF. I'M NOT GONNA SIT DOWN AND LET YOU KNOW RUN OVER ME.

Sgt. Delau knew this wasn't going to be easy. He told the two officers with him... I KNOW DOLLREE AND SHE'S NOT GOING TO LET US IN THIS HOUSE. BUT THEY BELIEVED THAT THE SUSPECT WAS THERE. WHEN THEY SHOWED UP AT THE HOUSE THEY JUST SAID, "WE'D LIKE TO COME INSIDE AND TALK TO YOU." AND MISS MAPP SAID TO THEM, DO YOU HAVE A SEARCH WARRANT?

Most of us have learned about search warrants from TV or the movies. But a warrant actually comes from the Fourth Amendment. A SEARCH WARRANT MUST BE VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT IS TO BE SEARCHED, WHERE IS IT GOING TO BE SEARCHED, AND WHO IS GOING TO BE SEARCHED. AND IT MUST BE SIGNED BY A JUDGE WHO IS NEUTRAL, WHO CAN READ THE DOCUMENT AND DETERMINE THAT PROBABLE CAUSE ACTUALLY EXISTS FOR GOING INTO THIS PERSON'S HOUSE OR CAR OR PLACE OF BUSINESS. THE WHOLE IDEA OF A SEARCH WARRANT IS TO GET A SECOND OPINION FROM A NEUTRAL AND DETACHED MAGISTRATE ABOUT WHETHER THE POLICE REALLY HAVE ENOUGH CAUSE TO SEARCH YOUR HOME FOR WHATEVER THEY'RE LOOKING FOR. AND SO THAT PIECE OF PAPER REALLY DOES REPRESENT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.

To the framers, liberty was not a vague notion or something to be fought for far away from home. It was just the opposite. Liberty was urgent. It was deeply personal. The framers understood the importance of liberty exactly because they had experienced tyranny inside their own homes. THE FOURTH AMENDMENT WAS A RESPONSE TO A SPECIFIC GRIEVANCE. THE BRITISH HAD WHAT WAS CALLED THE WRITS OF ASSISTANCE. AND THE WRITS OF ASSISTANCE GAVE BRITISH TROOPS THE RIGHT TO JUST SEARCH ANYBODY'S HOUSE AND LOOK FOR CONTRABAND... LOOK FOR ALL KINDS OF DIFFERENT THINGS. AND SO IT WAS VERY MUCH A BLANK CHECK FOR PEOPLE TO ENGAGE IN SEARCHES. AND PEOPLE WERE QUITE ALARMED AT THIS. SO THE WHOLE IDEA OF THE ILLEGAL SEARCHES AND SEIZURES WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS TREMENDOUSLY IMPORTANT TO THE FRAMERS. I'VE ALWAYS HAD MY OWN SUSPICION THAT PART OF IT WAS BECAUSE PROBABLY A LOT OF THEM HAD SEDITIOUS LITERATURE IN THEIR BASEMENTS. THEY WERE REVOLUTIONARIES.

Okay, now, you've probably heard of this... the Boston Tea Party was an early symbol of resistance to British rule. But twelve years before that, in 1761, Attorney James Otis fought the British Empire over Writs of Assistance in a Boston courtroom. A MAN'S HOUSE IS HIS CASTLE. HE WAS ARGUING ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF PRIVACY, ABOUT WHY IT WAS JUST OFFENSIVE TO PEOPLE AND TO DEMOCRACY ITSELF TO ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO HAVE THAT MUCH POWER THAT THEY COULD JUST SEARCH AND SEIZE AT WILL. THESE WRITS OF ASSISTANCE, IF DECLARED LEGAL, WOULD TOTALLY ANNIHILATE THIS SACRED HUMAN RIGHT. Lucky for us, future president John Adams heard the real Otis and not this actor. A MAN'S RIGHT TO HIS HOME IS DERIVED FROM NATURE. After hearing Otis make his final argument Adams said... THEN AND THERE THE CHILD LIBERTY WAS BORN.

That's how central the idea of restricting searches and seizures is to American democracy. THE IDEA OF SOMEONE KNOCKING ON THE DOOR OR BREAKING DOWN THE DOOR AT 2:00 IN THE MORNING TO TOSS YOU OUT OF BED, POSSIBLY TO TAKE YOU INTO CUSTODY WITHOUT EVER TELLING YOU WHY OR SHOWING ANY JUSTIFICATION WAS A KIND OF POWER THAT NEEDED TO BE REINED IN BECAUSE IN ORDER TO HAVE A SUCCESSFUL, SELF-GOVERNING SOCIETY, INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ARE IN CHARGE. SO, THE COLONIALS PUT IN THE FOURTH AMENDMENT THE RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. NOW WE HAVE COME TO UNDERSTAND THAT AN UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE IS SOMETHING THAT'S DONE WITHOUT A WARRANT. SO THE JUDGE DECIDES WHOSE HOME GETS TO BE INVADED.

But look at this. Unreasonable... Warrant... Probable Cause... what's missing from the Fourth Amendment is a way to make sure the police obey it. Not only that, most crime is handled by local police and state courts. And several states never enforced the use of warrants. So police just stopped getting them. If they searched a house without one, that evidence would be used in a trial anyway, so... POLICE OFFICERS KNOWING THAT A WARRANT WAS NOT NECESSARY WOULD CONDUCT WARRANTLESS SEARCHES BECAUSE THEY KNEW THAT THERE WERE NO RAMIFICATIONS FOR THEIR ACTIONS. AND SO THERE WAS NOTHING TO DETER THEM FROM ACTING IN AN ILLEGAL FASHION.

So when Sgt. Delau rang Dolly Mapp's doorbell he didn't have a warrant, and she didn't invite him in. She believed she had rights to protect her. I HAVEN'T COMMITTED A CRIME, SO WHY YOU HERE? I CALLED A LAWYER. SHE WAS A LEGALLY SOPHISTICATED PERSON. SHE WENT BACK, SHE TALKED TO AN ATTORNEY, AND THE LAWYER SAID, "DON'T LET THEM IN IF THEY DON'T HAVE A WARRANT." SO THE POLICE WENT AWAY. THREE HOURS LATER THEY COME BACK AGAIN. THEY BROKE A WINDOW AND THEN THEY PRIED OPEN A DOOR IN ORDER TO GAIN ENTRY TO THE HOUSE. AND WHEN I LOOKED UP, THEY WERE IN MY HOUSE. SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT DOLLREE HAD NOT LET THEM IN THE HOME. IN FACT, SHE CONTINUED TO TELL THEM THEY WERE NOT WELCOME, BUT THEY ENTERED THE HOME ANYWAY. AND THEY SAY, "WE HAVE A SEARCH WARRANT." AND DOLLREE MAPP SAYS MAY I SEE THE WARRANT? SO THE POLICE OFFICER THERE PULLS OUT A PIECE OF PAPER AND WAVES IT IN FRONT OF HER AND STARTS PUTTING IT BACK. SHE GRABBED THE PIECE OF PAPER AND PUT IT DOWN HER BLOUSE.

Turned out, that paper was not a warrant... the police never got one. At this point, though, they handcuffed Dolly Mapp and searched her house. They actually found their suspect downstairs so he was there, but he was also released the next day, because it turns out he had nothing to do with the bombing. They didn't find anything else related to the bomb, but in an upstairs dresser, the police found some pornography that Dolly Mapp says was owned by one of her former boarders. THEY FOUND SOME MATERIALS THAT LED HER TO BEING PROSECUTED FOR OBSCENITY... POSSESSION OF OBSCENE MATERIALS. ONE OF THE THINGS THEY FOUND UP ON THE SECOND FLOOR WERE EROTIC COMIC BOOKS.

Okay, take a moment... it's okay to giggle. Even Dolly and one of the officers laughed that day... I DIDN'T THINK I WAS IN ANY TROUBLE. THE OFFICER ENJOYED LOOKING AT THEM HIMSELF. But the laughter ended quickly. Although they didn't charge her with anything having to do with the bombing, Dolly was charged with possession of obscene materials. For having this in her home, even though it wasn't hers she was facing 1-7 years in prison and a fine of up to two thousand dollars. IT'S ASTONISHING. IT'S A TERRIBLE LAW. THE OHIO LAW PROHIBITED POSSESSION OF OBSCENE MATERIAL, SO IT WAS QUITE A BROAD ANTI-OBSCENITY LAW.

At her trial here in the Cuyahoga Courthouse, Dolly and her attorney, A.L. Kearns, tried to have the evidence thrown out, or excluded. They claimed the search was unconstitutional since there was no warrant. That's called the Exclusionary Rule. THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE IS A RULE THAT SAYS IF THE POLICE OBTAIN EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF YOUR FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS, THROUGH AN UNREASONABLE SEARCH OR SEIZURE, THAT EVIDENCE CAN'T BE INTRODUCED AGAINST YOU IN A PROSECUTION. The Exclusionary Rule in the American legal system goes back to 1914 in a case called Weeks v. United States, where the Court said that if a federal law enforcement officer found evidence illegally, that evidence could not be used against the defendant. THIS WAS TREMENDOUSLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT THE SUPREME COURT RECOGNIZED THAT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT SETS OUT CERTAIN RULES, AND THAT IF THE POLICE DON'T FOLLOW THOSE RULES, AND THEY OBTAIN EVIDENCE THAT THAT EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT BE USED.

Okay, so a minute ago I pointed out that missing from the Fourth Amendment was any way to enforce it. The Weeks decision was the Supreme Court's way of trying to fix that. It said to police, "If you don't have a warrant, you can't use the evidence." The Exclusionary Rule was the Court's way of enforcing the Fourth Amendment. But at the time of Weeks, the Fourth Amendment did not apply to the states. It's a little confusing, but, here, check this out. The Bill of Rights gives us all these wonderful rights and freedoms, but it only applied to the federal government. See - Congress shall make no law. Then in the early 20th century, the Court started to apply some of these fundamental rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, written and ratified after the Civil War to rein in the states. This process is called incorporation. But the Court was split about how far to go. AND WHAT HAPPENED EVENTUALLY WAS THE COURT SAID WE'RE NOT GOING TO SAY TAKE THE BILL OF RIGHTS AS A WHOLE, IT APPLIES AGAINST THE STATES. WE'RE GOING TO CONSIDER EACH RIGHT INDIVIDUALLY, AND WE'RE GOING TO ASK IF IT IS SUFFICIENTLY IMPORTANT THAT WE THINK THE STATES HAVE TO OBSERVE IT?

So 35 years after Weeks, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling on the Fourth Amendment in Wolf v. Colorado. The Wolf decision said that states have to incorporate the rights in the Fourth Amendment, but states don't have to use the Exclusionary Rule to enforce those rights because the Exclusionary Rule isn't in the Constitution. IN THE WOLF DECISION THE SUPREME COURT HAD SAID YOU'VE GOT THE RIGHT TO BE FREE OF UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, BUT THAT RIGHT IS QUITE DISTINCT FROM THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE. THE SUPREME COURT SAYS THE FOURTH AMENDMENT APPLIES AGAINST THE STATES, BUT NOT THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE, BECAUSE THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE ISN'T REALLY A KEY PART OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. THAT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT WE JUDGES HAVE COME UP WITH AS A DEVICE FOR ENFORCING THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote the 6-3 majority opinion in Wolf, calling the Exclusionary Rule a judicial-made remedy that is not actually in the Constitution, so the states didn't have to use it. IF THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF DOESN'T GIVE YOU THAT REMEDY, THEN YOU'RE NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO HAVE IT IN STATE COURTS.

So here's what all of this means for our case and for Dolly Mapp. Ohio didn't recognize the Exclusionary Rule. Instead, the state allowed evidence found illegally to be used in court. So the pornography the police discovered at Dolly's house was introduced into her trial, and a jury found Dolly guilty of breaking Ohio's obscenity law. SHE WAS SENTENCED TO THE MAXIMUM. WHICH WAS SEVEN YEARS PLUS A $2000 FINE. SEVEN YEARS FOR WHAT? MY CASE WASN'T RIGHT. IT WAS ILLEGAL TO DO THIS TO ME.

Dolly's lawyer appealed - but mainly on the issue that Ohio's obscenity law violated the First Amendment protecting freedom of speech, and her case went all the way to the United States Supreme Court. That's when the American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU joined in. THE ACLU ASKED FOR PERMISSION TO FILE A BRIEF IN THIS CASE IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE ARGUMENT THAT DOLLREE MAPP'S LAWYER WAS MAKING, THAT HER CONVICTION VIOLATED THE FIRST AMENDMENT. AN AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IS WHAT WE CALL A FRIEND OF THE COURT BRIEF. IT'S A BRIEF THAT IS WRITTEN BY OUTSIDE PARTIES, WHICH LAY OUT LEGAL ARGUMENTS THAT PERTAIN TO THE CASE BEFORE THE COURT. THE AMICUS BRIEF WRITTEN BY THE ACLU FOCUSED PRIMARILY ON THE LEGALITY OF THE ANTI-OBSCENITY LAW. After arguing the First Amendment case that Dolly had a right to own any book she wanted, for 20 pages, the ACLU brief added 11 lines at the very end, almost as an afterthought. It turned back to the search of Dolly's home without a warrant, and asked the Court to overturn the Wolf decision, and apply the Exclusionary Rule to the states.

On March 29, 1961, oral arguments at the United States Supreme Court were equally complicated. Was the Mapp case a First Amendment case about free speech? Or was it a Fourth Amendment case about unlawful search and seizure? You can almost understand how Dolly Mapp's attorney, A.L. Kearns, got a little confused. His argument confused Justice Felix Frankfurter. HE WAS RAMBLING. AND AT ONE POINT, FRANKFURTER INTERRUPTED HIM TO ASK HIM WHAT THE CASE WAS ABOUT. WHAT WAS THE QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT? Remember, Justice Frankfurter actually wrote the Wolf decision, and he didn't want to see it overturned. He strongly believed that the Exclusionary Rule was not a right, and should be left up to the states. When pressed on the issue, Attorney Kearns just sounded lost. Fortunately for Dolly, the ACLU attorney, Bernard Berkman was also granted 15 minutes to address the Court. Recognizing just how badly things were going, the very first thing he said was... The ACLU made the case that the State of Ohio should not be allowed to use the evidence found in Dolly Mapp's home against her, because it was obtained illegally. The State of Ohio acknowledged that the police had no warrant, but argued that the Wolf decision should stand and the state should decide for itself whether or not it could use evidence illegally obtained without a warrant.

In the end, the Court decided to overturn Wolf by a 6-3 margin in Mapp. The majority ruled that the search and seizure at Dolly's house was unlawful because it was done without a warrant so the evidence should have been excluded, and that the Exclusionary Rule should apply to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Tom Clark wrote the majority decision. JUSTICE CLARK'S VIEW WAS BASICALLY THAT FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS ARE WORTHLESS IF THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE IS NOT AVAILABLE BECAUSE IF THE POLICE KNOW THEY CAN USE THE EVIDENCE AGAINST YOU, WHY NOT GO AHEAD AND BREAK DOWN THE DOOR? THERE'S NO MEANINGFUL DISINCENTIVE TO POLICE. Justice Hugo Black had actually joined the majority in Wolf back in 1949 because he didn't think the Exclusionary Rule was a fundamental right. This time, he changed his mind. BY THE EARLY '60S, HUGO BLACK HAS DECIDED THAT THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE IS PART OF THE CONSTITUTION. MAYBE NOT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT ALONE, BUT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IN COMBINATION WITH THE FIFTH AMENDMENT SELF-INCRIMINATION CLAUSE. Justice Black thought that using evidence obtained illegally in court was like forcing someone to testify against herself, which is banned by the Fifth Amendment. Taken together, "a constitutional basis emerges which not only justifies but actually requires the exclusionary rule".

Justice Potter Stewart ruled in Mapp's favor, but on the First Amendment issue that Ohio's obscenity law was too broad. And Justice John Harlan criticized the majority for using the Exclusionary Rule to overturn a precedent, even though it can't be found in the Constitution. HE WAS SAYING, BASICALLY, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE JUSTICES THINK IS A GOOD IDEA. THEY WANT THE STATES TO HAVE TO DO THIS, AND SO THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE THEM DO IT EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS. In dissent, Justice Harlan was joined by Justice Frankfurter. This take on Mapp and the Exclusionary Rule pretty much frames the controversy about this case to this day. It's complicated stuff.

Police chiefs said the Mapp ruling led to tighter police procedure and more professionalism. THAT CASE HAD VERY IMPORTANT RAMIFICATIONS FOR EVERY POLICE DEPARTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND EVERY POLICE OFFICER. Craig Uchida was the Director of Criminal Justice Research at the National Institute of Justice. He worked with police departments across the country to improve their performance. MAPP HAD A HUGE EFFECT ON POLICE BEHAVIOR AND THE SUBSEQUENT RULINGS IN THE 1960s AS WELL. Starting with the Mapp case, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren began to apply criminal procedure protections found in the Bill of Rights to the states through incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Some people have labeled it the "due process revolution." After Mapp, the Court under Warren ruled that everyone in every state should have legal counsel, and that everyone in custody should have their rights clearly explained to them to avoid self-incrimination. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT. ANYTHING YOU SAY CAN OR WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU IN A COURT OF LAW. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IS PRIMARILY DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE INNOCENT. MOST OF WHAT YOU SEE, THE HEARSAY RULES, THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY, THE RIGHT TO SUBPOENA ARE ALL THINGS THAT ARE DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE INNOCENT.

But the controversy over the Exclusionary Rule is still going on. In the 50 years since the Mapp decision, the Court has chipped away at it, reducing its status again to a remedy - something less than a right. SINCE THE WARREN COURT, THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE HAS BEEN CUT BACK IN ALL SORTS OF WAYS. THE COURT HAS CREATED A WHOLE SERIES OF EXCEPTIONS. It has limited where the Exclusionary Rule is applied... THE COURT DETERMINED THAT THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE WAS NOT APPROPRIATE IN GRAND JURY HEARINGS. And the Court has placed limitations on how the Exclusionary Rule is applied. For instance, if the police obtain a warrant but the warrant has mistakes, a judge might allow the evidence because the police did their best to follow proper procedure. THEY SAID FOR EXAMPLE, OH, THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE DOESN'T APPLY IN GENERAL IF THE POLICE ACTED IN GOOD FAITH. THE COURT SAYS EVEN IF IT'S THE POLICE WHO MAKE THE MISTAKE, THEY'RE STILL ENTITLED TO THIS GOOD FAITH EXCEPTION. And the Court will almost certainly hear more cases because we haven't finished debating the Exclusionary Rule. One side thinks it helps the guilty... WE'RE LETTING A GUILTY PERSON GO FREE. The other side says it keeps the police disciplined... THAT'S THE ONLY WAY, REALLY, TO ENSURE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO GET THE WARRANT.

And we certainly haven't finished debating the language in the Fourth Amendment. To protect these rights, do we need warrants? Or do we simply need the police to be reasonable? IT SAYS NO WARRANT SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE. AND PEOPLE HAVE TAKEN THAT TO MEAN THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IS DESIGNED TO GET THE GOVERNMENT TO OBTAIN A WARRANT. 99 PERCENT OF THE STUFF THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS TODAY AND EVERY DAY HAPPENS WITHOUT A WARRANT. YOU'RE CROSSING A BORDER AND YOUR BAGGAGE IS SEARCHED AT THE AIRPORT OR YOU GO THROUGH A METAL DETECTOR. THERE'S NO WARRANT.

The Framers left room for debate because they knew they didn't have all the answers. But they also knew they wanted to insure certain rights, and created a system intended to make us safe from criminal behavior and from a government that sometimes might cut corners with our liberty. THE FRAMERS SAID, SOMETIMES IT IS NOT SO IMPORTANT TO US TO CATCH CRIMINALS, THAT WE'RE WILLING TO THROW OUR PRIVACY AND OUR LIBERTY TO THE WINDS. WE HAVE A SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT THAT BALANCES THE NEED TO CONVICT THE GUILTY AGAINST THE DESIRE TO PROTECT THE INNOCENT, VERY, VERY HEAVILY IN FAVOR OF PROTECTING THE INNOCENT.

And in this case, our system protected Dolly Mapp. I FELT GOOD. I KNEW THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT I SHOULD DO. AND I DID EVERYTHING THAT I KNEW HOW. Even without legal training, Dolly Mapp knew she had certain rights, and intended to defend them. I FELT THAT I HAD BEEN TREATED WRONG. IF THE SEARCH WAS ILLEGAL, THEN YOU GOT THE LAW ON YOUR SIDE. Her case represented a struggle for the ultimate goal of the American legal system... Justice. Delivered by way of the Constitution.