Vol. 16 No. 9 (September, 2006) pp.682-684

 

MAPP V. OHIO: GUARDING AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, by Carolyn N. Long. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2006. 224pp. Cloth. $35.00. ISBN: 0-7006-1440-0.  Paper $15.95. ISBN: 0-7006-1441-9.

 

Reviewed by Gloria Cox, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of North Texas, and Dean, Honors College.  Email: gcox [at] unt.edu.

 

MAPP V. OHIO: GUARDING AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES is part of the Landmark Law Cases and American Society series, an initiative of the University Press of Kansas. This is one of several series published by the press, including those on the American Presidency, Modern War, and American Political Thought. The Landmark Law Cases and American Society Series focuses on books about important legal cases and constitutional principles. Dozens of titles are in print, each concentrating on a specific important case or constitutional issue.

 

In MAPP V. OHIO: GUARDING AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, Carolyn Long examines a search and seizure case of monumental significance. There have been other important Supreme Court rulings concerning the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures, but, as Long explains, MAPP dramatically changed the way state and local law enforcement officers do business by imposing the exclusionary rule on their activities. Federal authorities had operated under an exclusionary rule for decades (since WEEKS v. UNITED STATES in 1914), but state and local law enforcement personnel were not subject to the same restriction. By the time of MAPP, about half the states had adopted their own exclusionary rule, but law enforcement officials in the remaining states could still use illegally seized evidence at criminal trials. 

 

The ruling in MAPP v. OHIO is important for another reason: it heralded the revolution that the Warren Court would effect in procedural rights for the criminally accused, opening the door to many other rulings that would have great impact. Among those are the rights to have the assistance of an attorney (GIDEON v. WAINWRIGHT, 1963); to remain silent (ESCOBEDO v. ILLINOIS, 1964); and to be given notice of one’s rights when placed under arrest or taken into custody (MIRANDA v. ARIZONA, 1966). All of these rulings, including MAPP v. OHIO, sparked major, often acrimonious, debates, many of which continue on some level to this day, and all the rulings have been refined or altered to some extent by later courts.  Search and seizure rules, the key issue in MAPP, continue to grab headlines, as current issues such as the war on terror and the Patriot Act provoke discussions about Fourth Amendment rights. 

 

Long provides an excellent framework for consideration of the exclusionary rule. Perhaps the dominant recurring theme (and one of the truly important questions in this debate) is the existence of two divergent understandings of the nature of the exclusionary rule. To some [*683] scholars and judges, it is a constitutionally mandated remedy to deal with law enforcement transgressions against the guarantees citizens are afforded by the Fourth Amendment. To others, it is simply a device created and imposed by judges, and, as such, subject to change over time. Long allows this important controversy to emerge, then returns to it appropriately again and again. Considering that it is a key concept of the analysis (and of virtually all debates about the exclusionary rule), one wonders if it would benefit the reader to have a more systematic exploration of the subject early in the book.

 

Any discussion of the Fourth Amendment will be technical and legalistic to some degree, but Long adds interest by including information from her interviews with some of the main figures in the case, including Dollree Mapp. Long’s discussion of her interviews adds an extra dimension to our understanding of these individuals. Mapp turns out to be a bold woman who found herself on the wrong side of the law more than once during her lifetime. She provides vivid details of the search conducted in her home and mocks the reactions of police to the “dirty books” they found and confiscated during the search. More interesting than the Mapp interview in many respects, though, is Long’s interview of Police Officer Carl Delau, who raided and searched Mapp’s house while pretending to have a search warrant and arguing that he did not actually need one.  Long is quick to point out that the behavior of Delau and other Cleveland police officers was not unusual (p.11), and that police officers routinely disregarded the requirement for a search warrant and were allowed to go to court with whatever they had seized. The reader is treated to a dramatic illustration of the distance between the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment and the actions of state and local law enforcement officials.  

 

These interviews also serve to illustrate a fact underlying virtually every case that reaches the Supreme Court: the ordinary nature of the people and circumstances from which the issue emerged. In fact, according to Long, even the attorneys were far from being distinguished defenders of the Constitution or great legal minds. Be warned, however, that while this is an interesting beginning to the book, it is also benignly deceptive, as the story approach quickly gives way to a real discussion of legal and constitutional issues. In fact, by the end of Chapter One, the case has developed to the point that attorneys are already contemplating whether to appeal lower court rulings to the Supreme Court. Within this serious discussion, Long continues to explore the nature of the exclusionary rule, setting the stage for later discussions of Republican administration politics.

 

It may be frustrating to some readers when the book departs from the friendly beginning to become progressively more technical and legalistic. By the final chapters, there is mention of one case after another, with less explanation than most readers will need. However, it is quite likely that Long was constrained by guidelines for length and number of pages that prevented a longer, more nuanced discussion of court decisions. [*684] This problem is compounded by a noticeable imbalance, with far more discussion of some points than others that seem to be of equal relevance.

 

What will provoke even greater concern for many readers is the lack of any footnotes or endnotes in this book.  Long bears no responsibility for this stylistic decision, as it is a requirement for books in the series and is designed to make the book more appealing and readable.  Although a bibliographical essay is included at the end, the conscientious reader who believes quotes should be either attributed or avoided will find it frustrating to read without citations. It is particularly troubling in Chapter Six when Long considers various studies about the effects of the exclusionary rule and yet leaves the reader without source information.

 

These concerns are balanced by especially interesting treatments of certain topics, such as Long’s description of how the case was prepared for oral argument before the Supreme Court. On the one hand is a case about a constitutional issue of great importance, which is to be reviewed by a court of eminent judges. On the other is a team of attorneys which is, individually and collectively, in way over their heads. According to Long, a court clerk remarked on the poor quality of the legal briefs submitted by both sides, and how glad the justices were to receive excellent briefs from the Ohio and American Civil Liberties Unions (p.69). According to Long, ACLU attorney Bernard Berkman requested and was granted time to speak during oral argument, the first time such a privilege was accorded to an amicus attorney. He saved the day with his remarks, which came after those of State of Ohio Attorney Gertrude Mahon who suffered through a truly miserable appearance before the Court (pp.75-76). Students of law and of the Supreme Court will find Long’s account of the process well worth the read.

 

Overall, Long provides a book with potential appeal to a wide audience, as it can be appreciated by anyone with an interest in the issue, from the curious college undergraduate or professor who wishes to know more about the exclusionary rule to the general reader with an interest in legal issues.  Long achieves the enviable, by writing about an important topic with meaningful detail that generally informs but does not frustrate. MAPP V. OHIO: GUARDING AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES provides a valuable introduction to a legal issue of great importance and broad interest.

 

CASE REFERENCES:

ESCOBEDO v. ILLINOIS, 378 US 478 (1964).

 

GIDEON v. WAINWRIGHT, 372 US 335 (1963).

 

MAPP v. OHIO, 367 US 643 (1961).

 

MIRANDA v. ARIZONA, 384 US 436 (1966).

 

WEEKS v. UNITED STATES, 232 US 383 (1914).

*************************************************

© Copyright 2006 by the author, Gloria Cox.