Carolyn Long

Part of their reaction was shock because they did not think they were doing anything wrong because they had repeatedly engaged in these types of searches without a warrant.

And there was quite an uproar of how it would coddle criminals.

allow criminals to go free.

There's a quote about, is the criminal to go free because the constable is blundered?

The argument being, you know, why would we free criminals because law enforcement made a minor mistake?

Well, the reason, of course, is that they shouldn't be engaging these types of searches in the first place.

If somebody consents to a search, they don't need to get a warrant.

If there are exigent circumstances, meaning police don't have time to get a warrant because maybe they're on a foot race chasing somebody, they don't need a warrant.

That if you have a lower expectation of privacy, for instance, in your car or where you're at, you don't need a warrant.

So what happened subsequent to MAP, you know, as some people have said, is if the Fourth Amendment looked like Swiss cheese.

And so that's sort of where we are at now, where warrants are required in certain circumstances, as long as it doesn't fall into these exceptions.

And then in many other circumstances, law enforcement just has to behave reasonably, which, of course, is a fairly subjective standard.

It was a legitimate arrest.

It was a legitimate search.

She was ultimately convicted.

And it's important to note that at this time, New York was taking a very firm stance against drugs, especially if you're trafficking drugs.

And she was given a 20-year sentence in prison.

As she's leaving, you know, she's been released, one of the guards said, you know, Ms.

Mapp, I'll never forget you.

And her response was, I've forgotten you already.