Unwarranted

Security program on spreadsheets, new regulations piling up, and audit thread? It's time for Vanta. Vanta automates security and compliance, brings evidence into one place, and cuts audit prep by 82%. Less manual work, clearer visibility, faster deals, zero chaos. Call it compliance or call it Com-Pliance. Get it? Join the 15,000 companies using Vanta to prove trust. Go to vant.com. Go to vant.com. On the morning of May 20th in 1957, a man named Don King was alone at home. Don King wasn't famous yet as a boxing promoter, but in Cleveland he was known as the numbers are. Don King was about 25, so fairly young. He was starting to also become very active in the boxing community. This is Professor Carolyn Long. When Don King was 10, his father was killed in an accident at his job at a steel factory. Don King and his brother started running an illegal lottery known as the numbers. They would sell peanuts to the gambling houses in town. Each bag of nuts contained a square paper with lottery numbers on it. They would shout, get your hot roasted peanuts and your lucky number. By the time he was 25, he was well known for running illegal gambling in Cleveland. At one point, he was making $15,000 a day from his gambling operation. The people who were involved were primarily from the African-American community, and they were very much targeted by law enforcement because of the assumption that it was connected to organized crime, which is why the vice squad always went after them. In Cleveland, vice crimes were handled by a unit called the Special Bureau of Investigation. One officer there was Sergeant Carl DeLau. He'd arrested Don King for illegal gambling in 1954, but afterwards, Don King and Carl DeLau became friendly, and sometimes Don King told Carl about rival gambling operations and that he had to pay money to local gangsters for protection. And then, on the morning of May 20, 1957, a bomb exploded under Don King's front porch. It was not a big bomb, but it was enough to scare someone. So it destroyed part of King's porch. It was obviously intentionally set, and he believed that people who were involved in gambling had set the bomb as a warning to him. And he immediately called Carl DeLau and this Bureau of Special Investigations because he was concerned about his own safety. A few days later, Carl DeLau got an anonymous tip about the bomb. The tip said that a man named Virgil Ogletree, another numbers game operator, knew something about it and that he was hiding at a house nearby. It belonged to someone Don King knew, a woman named Dollry Mapp. Dollry Mapp was born on October 30, 1923. She grew up in a small town in Mississippi. Carolyn says that Dollry told her that she was strong-willed as a child. She told her parents that, quote, she wanted to live her life her own way. When she was 10, they let her move in with her aunt, in Cleveland. When she was 15, she got pregnant and had a daughter. She stayed in Cleveland and later dropped out of school. When Dollry was 21, she got engaged to a boxer named Jimmy Bivens. Dollry said it was an abusive relationship. She told Carolyn, I had to leave him or kill him and I wasn't ready to kill him. But she didn't want to say much else. She said, you know, I'm not going to talk about that. I don't need to talk about that. He's a non-entity. He's irrelevant to my life. Dollry later dated another boxer, Archie Moore. They got engaged when she was 31, but broke up about a year later. So she was really well-known in the community because not only of these relationships, but because of who she was. She was socializing with people and her name was well-known in the area. What did she look like? Well, at the time, she was strikingly attractive. She was in her early 30s. She was very slender, high cheekbones and an incredible fierce gaze that just captured you. You could tell how confident she was as a young woman and also how defiant she was. Dollry map was stopped often by the police on suspicion of being involved in illegal gambling. She had not been arrested at this point, but she certainly had been detained and questioned and in her mind, harassed by law enforcement. They seemed to look for ways to confront her. Carl DeLau referred to her as his arch enemy. I think that was less because she was some prominent criminal and more that she was a young black woman who really pushed back and was oftentimes accusing them of targeting her and the people she knew because of their race and that it was unnecessary and that it was really brutal to her and to her friends to be under this constant scrutiny by police. Carl DeLau, he was unapologetic about his job. He had been tasked to look into illegal gambling. I remember speaking to him and he said, we were well-trained. We were aggressive, but we were doing what the community wanted. We had a lot of wins, meaning there were a number of arrests that they were able to make to show their progress and cracking down on this behavior. The dynamic between an all-white police force sort of going after people in these communities who are predominantly black was not really of concern to them because they were so certain that what they were doing was right. On May 23rd, 1957, three days after the bomb went off under Don King's porch, Carl DeLau and two other officers went to Dahlri Mapp's house. It was early afternoon and Dahlri heard her door knock and she looked out her second-story window and saw three officers sort of pounding on the door. And she yelled out the window, you know, what are you doing here? And they said, you know, we just want to talk to you, Dahlri. And she said, well, what do you want to talk to me about? And they refused to tell her. And she said, well, I'm not going to let you in in my home. Dahlri Mapp called her lawyer's office and they told her she didn't have to let the police come in. And that if they wanted to speak to her about anything, they would have to produce a warrant which granted them access to her house. And so after speaking to her attorney, she yelled out the window a second time that she wasn't going to speak to them until they had a warrant. And then she closed the window and hoped that they would leave. The police officers went back to their car and drove a block away where Sergeant DeLau called his boss. And a supervisor said, you know, go back and talk to her. And DeLau said that they needed to get a warrant. The supervisor said, you know, well, look into it. Their lieutenant called Dahlri Mapp. She also told him she wouldn't let the officers in without a warrant. When she hung up, she saw Carl DeLau and the other officers outside again. She called her lawyer's office again and asked if someone could come to her house. A lawyer named Walter Green drove over. When he got there, it was around 4.30. He saw several police cars and about 15 police officers all outside Dahlri Mapp's house. People next door were coming outside to see what was going on. Walter Green later said, it looked like something out of the movies. Her attorney, he noticed that three of the officers were trying to pry open her door with some sort of a tool and instrument like a crowbar. Walter Green asked if they had gotten a search warrant. He said if they showed it to Dahlri Mapp, she would let them in. They wouldn't need to force their way in. Another officer arrived at the house and Carl DeLau told Dahlri's lawyer that now they had a warrant. Walter Green says he wasn't allowed to see it. One of the officers got the screen door open and broke a glass pane in the door to open it. And so right when they've broken into the house, broken the pane of glass, she starts to walk down her staircase to confront the officers and she asks for a warrant. She said, where's your warrant? And one of the officers sort of waved a piece of paper. Dahlri Mapp asked to see the search warrant. An officer named Lieutenant White showed her a piece of paper that he said was the warrant. When she asked to read it, he refused. And so she grabbed it and then put it down the front of her dress. The officer who had the alleged warrant said, well, what are we going to do now? And Carl DeLau said, well, I'm going after it. And then he reached into the dress by her bosom and then retrieved the piece of paper. And at no point during this short interaction, did they show the piece of paper to Mapp. They just insisted that they had, you know, a search warrant. Police handcuffed Dahlri Mapp to an officer while about a dozen other officers continued to search her home. She was calling out to her lawyer. Her lawyer had been denied access to see her or even speak to her. Police went to the apartment in the basement that Dahlri Mapp rented out to another woman. Inside they found Virgil Ogletree, the man who the anonymous tip said was connected to the bombing at Don King's house. And they found him and they arrested him because of course he had been named as a potential suspect in the bombing. And for all intents and purposes, the search should have ended there. But they were already in the house. They had an enormous police presence in the area. So they looked at everything. They looked in her basement. They looked in her kitchen drawers, her drawers of her bedroom dresser, the closet. She said, I had some diet pills and they were looking in the package of my diet pills. So it was a very intensive search. And at that point, I would suggest as would Mapp, they were looking for anything that might implicate her in some sort of criminal activity. But why if they had found the man they were there for? This Bureau of Special Investigations was explicitly formed by law enforcement to go after vice crimes. And so I think that they used this as an opportunity to find whatever we can to pin on her. They also had done searches like this with other people, meaning that they had searched other homes without police warrants. They had detained other people without just cause. So for them, it was just another day. But for Mapp, of course, it was just a tremendous intrusion into her personal life. I'm Phoebe Judge. This is Criminal. We'll be right back. To listen without ads, join Criminal Plus. Support for Criminal comes from Quince. Spring is the perfect time to update your wardrobe. And if you're looking for high quality, long lasting pieces that you can wear year after year, you might want to consider Quince. Quince makes beautiful everyday pieces using premium materials like 100% European linen, organic cotton, and super soft denim. And they start around $50. Their spring pieces are lightweight and breathable. They're the kinds of things you can throw on and instantly look put together. I like their t-shirts and organic cotton. They're soft and breathable, which makes them perfect for warm spring days. And they come in different styles and colors, so it's easy to find something you like. Refresh your spring wardrobe with Quince. Go to quince.com slash criminal for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns, now available in Canada too. Go to quince.com slash criminal to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com slash criminal. Support for Criminal comes from Mint Mobile. Most of us prefer to know where our money is going, but some big wireless companies make that difficult, surprising you with high bills and unexpected fees. Mint Mobile takes a different approach. They offer a premium wireless plan starting at just $15 a month, with high speed 5G data plus unlimited talk and text included. And there's no need to switch your phone or your number. We have a friend who uses Mint Mobile and he says it was very easy to activate. It only took him a few minutes to set everything up. He's been saving money with his new plan. If you like your money, Mint Mobile is for you. Shop plans at mintmobile.com slash Phoebe. That's mintmobile.com slash Phoebe. A upfront payment of $45 for a three month 5G plan required, equivalent to $15 a month. New customer offer for first three months only, then full price plan options available. Taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details. What do they end up finding? They did find evidence of the numbers game. So there are slips of paper. It was in a trunk in the basement. And then when they searched her bedroom, they said they had found other material and they came to her with a paper bag and it had four books that they believed were obscene. The books were titled London Stage Affairs, the affairs of a troubadour, memories of a hotel man and little darlings. They also found a new drawing. Dollry map said that the officers quote seem to enjoy them immensely. Police took dollry map to the station. Carl to allow question dollry about the bomb at Don King's house. Dollry map said that she knew Don King. They were acquaintances, but she didn't know anything about the bombing. Sergeant allow said dollry was very evasive in her answers and that she was not making an effort to help the police. Police asked her about the four books they had found at her home. Dollry said they belonged to a former tenant who had moved out over a month earlier. Officers questioned Virgil Ogletree, who told them he had arrived at dollry maps house just before the police. He said he had once been involved with a gambling operation, but wasn't currently. He said he'd been at home when the bomb went off at Don King's house and didn't know anything about it. Virgil Ogletree was eventually released with no charges. Dollry map was charged with possession of gambling paraphernalia. She spent the night in jail, but the next morning a judge dismissed the charges and dollry map went home. A local newspaper ran a story on the front page about her arrest. Police told the reporter that MISS MAP was stubborn about letting them inside. And then a few days later police filed new charges for possession of obscene materials. The law was written in such a way that even if you did not know you had material that was potentially obscene, if it was in your possession as in in your house, law enforcement was able to make the argument that she had it in her possession and was therefore in violation of Ohio law. So they re-arrested her on violations of the obscenity statute, which actually was a felony in the state of Ohio. You can get up to seven years of prison. The trial was scheduled for the next year on September 3, 1958. You know, her interaction with law enforcement was tense. She had some real concern about whether or not she would get treated fairly in the justice system. As dollry maps lawyers were preparing for the trial, they requested to see the warrant police had brought to dollry's house multiple times. The prosecution never sent a copy. Dollry maps lawyers filed a motion to suppress the books found at dollry maps house. They didn't think the search was legal. They believed that there was no warrant, but a judge dismissed the motion. On the first day of the trial, an officer named Michael Haney testified that he was there when Carl DeLau found the books in dollry's bedroom. And then dollry maps lawyers asked him where the search warrant was now. Haney said, I don't know. Dollry's lawyer asked if he could remember what the warrant said. Michael Haney said he could not. He said that dollry had voluntarily welcomed the police inside. Carl DeLau testified next. He said that the police did break into the house. He also said that another officer brought him the warrant right before that. Dollry map told the jury that she had grabbed the piece of paper that the police had said was a warrant, but she had not been able to see or read it. The prosecutor questioned her about the books and if they were really hers. Dollry said again they didn't belong to her. At the end of the trial, the jury deliberated for 20 minutes. They found dollry map guilty of possession of quote, certain lewd and lascivious books. She was facing a one to seven year sentence and she was devastated. She was living with her young teenage daughter and she was terrified that she had been so easily convicted. Dollry map and her lawyers decided to try and appeal her conviction. Her lawyers wrote in their appeal that they believed that the obscenity law in Ohio violated dollry's constitutional rights. The Supreme Court had just ruled the year before in 1957 on how to define obscene material. Before that, the standard had been to define something as obscene if even a part of it was considered lewd. Now the court said that to be obscene, the material taken as a whole had to appeal to purient interest. Later that year, in the summer of 1957, two men were put on trial in San Francisco for obscenity. They ran a bookstore and had been charged for selling Alan Ginsberg's book, Howell. A judge found them not guilty. He wrote that he found the book had some quote, redeeming social importance. Dollry maps lawyers also wrote to the Ohio Court of Appeals that she was never allowed to see the police's search warrant and that it was also never shown to her lawyers or shown in court. Dollry was allowed to be at home while the court was considering her appeal. It went on for months and eventually went to the Ohio State Supreme Court. She just felt like the Damocles sword was over her head that there was going to come a point when she was going to have to serve a sentence. And so she told me, you know, she had two plans and one of the plans was to flee. She didn't want it to have to come to that, but she also, you know, refused to be imprisoned for something that she did not do. On March 23, 1960, the State Supreme Court handed down their decision on Dollry Maps case. Four of the seven justices said that Ohio's obscenity law was unconstitutional and that Dollry's conviction should be reversed. But Ohio's constitution required a supermajority. Six of the seven judges had to agree to declare a law unconstitutional. But all the justices had agreed that the search had been done without a warrant. One wrote that after looking at the evidence and trial testimony that, quote, no warrant was offered in evidence, there is no testimony as to who issued any warrant or as to what any warrant contained, and the absence from evidence of any such warrant is not explained or otherwise accounted for in the record. Her lawyers filed a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, a friend loaned her $8,000 to pay for the legal fees. They believed that focusing their arguments on the illegal search could help Dollry's case. In October of 1960, the Supreme Court agreed to hear her case. And then the American Civil Liberties Union contacted Dollry's lawyers. They asked to file an amicus brief or friend of the court brief. They said that they thought the police search had violated her Fourth Amendment rights. So the Fourth Amendment is sort of the first amendment in the Bill of Rights that deals with criminal procedure. And the Fourth Amendment does two things. It has a clause that protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. And then there's another clause which requires that if police are going to engage in a search, that they have to get a warrant based upon probable cause that is presented before a neutral magistrate. The Fourth Amendment primarily applies to people, their homes, and their effects or their papers. And it is an amendment that the framers felt very strongly needed to be in the Constitution because some of the abuses that happened during colonial times. In the 1700s, British officers would frequently search people's homes looking for smuggled goods. They would say that they had the right to enter because of a document called a writ of assistance. And a writ of assistance is nothing like a warrant. It's actually far more alarming. A writ of assistance is essentially a general writ that allows custom officers unlimited power to search people, their homes, and their effects. And it would stay in place, meaning that writ was active until the sovereign who had issued the writ had died. And there was a lot of pushback because of the nature of these searches. And there's a moment when an attorney in Boston, James Otis, he was giving these fiery speeches about how they were really intruding upon our rights to be free from the government engaging in these general pervasive searches. It sort of stirred the people in the audience. And one member in the audience was John Adams. John Adams was a young lawyer at the time. He later wrote that James Otis was a flame of fire and that his speech was when American independence was then in their born. Many years later, when John Adams was vice president, he would sign off on the Bill of Rights. It included several amendments about your rights if you're arrested. Over the past 140 years, the Supreme Court ruled on many cases about the Fourth Amendment, like if evidence collected on wiretaps needed a warrant or not, and whether copies made of illegally obtained evidence could be used in court. Carolyn says the Fourth Amendment is sometimes known as one of the most litigated provisions of the Bill of Rights. By 1914, the Supreme Court had ruled that the federal government could not use evidence seized without a valid warrant. But it wasn't until almost 1950 that the Supreme Court ruled on whether that should apply to state governments and police. It really came to the attention of the public in a case in 1949 called Wolf vs. Colorado. Julius Wolf was a doctor who'd been arrested for performing abortions. At the time, it was illegal in Colorado. Police charged him based on patient records they found in his office, but they had taken the papers without a warrant. The case went to the Supreme Court, and the justices all agreed that the search had been illegal. Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote that the security of one's privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police is basic to a free society. It was a tremendously important decision because he as well as many knew of the abuses of power law enforcement. And so the declaration that it was now applied to state and local officials was a really big deal. But Carolyn says that Justice Frankfurter left open the question of what to do with evidence if it was found in an illegal search. What happens when law enforcement engages in an unreasonable or an illegal search? On that question, Frankfurter sort of very much refused to say that the exclusion of that illegally seized evidence should be discarded. He said that the states would have to decide on their own if they wanted to throw out evidence obtained in an illegal search known as the exclusionary rule. Dallry Map's case was in the news lot. The newspapers were mostly interested because of Ohio's obscenity law. It got a lot of attention. Map ended up having a level of notoriety because people were watching this case. Issues of obscenity were on people's minds. Nobody thought that it would involve the exclusionary rule. Dallry Map drove to Washington for the first day of oral arguments at the Supreme Court on March 29, 1961. She arrived today early and visited the Supreme Court building. She met a bailiff there who answered her questions about how the Supreme Court worked and later how she could find out when a decision had been made on her case. Dallry Map's lawyer, Alexander Kearns, argued the case along with a lawyer from the ACLU. Alexander Kearns began his oral arguments by going step by step over when police broke into Dallry's home. He went on for more than 16 minutes before Justice Frankfurter interrupted him. Mr. Kearns, may I tell you what you need to be the questions that are open before this Court? The far as I read the syllabi, I can tell that any of these questions about the search and seizure are unlawful search and seizure. Are you asking us to overrule the world case in this Court? The lawyer from the ACLU said yes. They wanted the Court to reconsider Wolf v. Colorado, the case about the doctor whose papers had been taken without a warrant. They thought that the evidence in Dallry's case, the four books, should have been thrown out because the search was illegal. After the end of oral arguments, Dallry Map went home. She asked the bailiff who she'd spoken to earlier if he would call her to let her know if a decision had come down yet. So he did. He called her every week for months. We'll be right back. Support for criminal comes from Shopify. If you want to start your own business, you're probably asking yourself questions that start with what if. But no business owner ever figured it all out at once. And those questions are an important step towards launching your business. Shopify can help get you there. Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world. They're behind everything from household names to brands just getting started. You can make a beautiful online store by choosing from Shopify's hundreds of ready-to-use templates. They can help you write product descriptions, page headlines, and improve your product photography. You can connect with customers through an easy-to-run marketing campaign built through Shopify. And if you just need some advice, they offer award-winning 24-7 customer support. It's time to turn those what ifs into a thriving business with Shopify today. Sign up for your $1 per month trial today at Shopify.com slash criminal. Go to Shopify.com slash criminal. That's Shopify.com slash criminal. Support for criminal comes from Groon's. In early spring, many of us start thinking about ways to feel lighter and more energized. If you're looking for a snack that supports energy and digestion, you might consider trying Groon's. Groon's say they support whole-body health with one snack pack of gummies a day. They say they're not a multivitamin supplement or a prebiotic. They're all of those things, but at a fraction of the price. Their products are vegan, nut-free, gluten-free, dairy-free, and have no artificial colors or flavors. And they say it tastes great. Groon's say their ingredients are backed by over 35,000 research publications, and their gummies come in a pack because you can't fit the amount of nutrients into one single gummy. Like six grams of prebiotic fiber. That's like eating two cups of broccoli. But with Groon's, you get them in one easy snack pack. You can save up to 52% off with code CRIMINAL at groon's.co. That's code CRIMINAL at gruns.co. On June 19th, 1961, Dahlre Map got a phone call from the bailiff at the Supreme Court. He said, you don't have to go to jail. It's all over. The Supreme Court had ruled that the police search on Dahlre Map's home had been illegal under the Fourth Amendment. The evidence that they seized was ill-gotten because law enforcement had not had a warrant. It meant that the arrest was invalid and any of the evidence, these dirty books, would be excluded from trial. So it meant that she was free. Dahlre told Carolyn, it was a great relief that I didn't have to flee, that I didn't have to lose my daughter. At the time, about half the states in the country allowed for illegally seized evidence in state trials. The Supreme Court's decision made it so that every state in the country had to exclude illegally obtained evidence. So it was a very big deal. Judicial scholars call it the first shot across the bow in the incorporation of criminal procedure protections. Because what we saw happening was the court starting to pay attention to criminal procedure rights. It subsequently led to decisions like Miranda v. Arizona, which are protection against the right to self-incrimination, exclusionary rules extended there. And so you had this cascading effect where the court starts to see that some of these other constitutional protections are also fundamental. Over the next decade, the court began ruling on several cases on the rights of criminal defendants. Some legal scholars have called it the due process revolution. You get decisions like the Fifth Amendment right to be protected against self-incrimination, that if you are interrogated and you give a confession that's been courted, that that would be excluded from trial. Later, the constitutional right to confront your witnesses, constitutional protections against double jeopardy. There's just a whole slew of cases that came after MAP, which just extended these protections. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel in Gideon v. Wainwright. All of these decisions happened because MAP v. Ohio paved the way by showing the court that these protections need to be extended to protect against state and local law enforcement practices. Carl DeLau, one of the officers who had arrested Dahlre MAP in Cleveland, said the decision was devastating. He told Carolyn that he thought the decision would tie our hands in law enforcement. 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. Decades after searching Dahlre MAP's home, Carl DeLau admitted to a law professor that he had not had a warrant when he entered. Since the Supreme Court ruled on Dahlre MAP's case, they've also decided on cases that would allow for police to do searches without warrants in certain circumstances. 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 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 the 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. Dahlre MAP eventually moved from Ohio to New York City. She lived in Queens and ran a used furniture store in Harlem. She hired a man to manage it for her. Police soon learned that they were selling drugs together. They were eventually arrested for possession of heroin. 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. She spent a lot of time in the prison's law library. She helped other people get their visitation rights. Dahlre served almost 10 years before her sentence was commuted in 1980. As she's leaving, you know, she's been released. One of the guards said, you know, Ms. MAP, I'll never forget you. And her response was, I've forgotten you already. When she got out, she worked for a nonprofit that gave legal assistance to people in prison. Carolyn Long wrote a book about MAP via Ohio. When she interviewed Dahlre MAP for it, Dahlre was in her 80s. She lived by herself in her home in Queens, sort of a modest house. She took care of herself. She ate a vegetarian diet. You know, she was walking around the neighborhood often. But she didn't sort of put herself out there as, you know, the champion of the Fourth Amendment. She just sort of lived her own life. Dahlre MAP died in 2014 on Halloween, just after her 91st birthday. Her great niece said, my great aunt was very, very, very strong-willed. She didn't prepare for death. I think Aunt Dahlre thought she was going to live forever. CRIMINAL Criminal is created by Lauren Spore and me. Nadia Wilson is our senior producer. Katie Bishop is our supervising producer. Our producers are Susanna Robertson, Jackie Zajico, Lily Clark and Lena Cillison. This episode was fact-checked by Katie Cederborg. Our show is mixed and engineered by Veronica Cimmonetti. Julianne Alexander makes original illustrations for each episode of Criminal. You can see them at ThisIsCriminal.com. And you can sign up for our newsletter at ThisIsCriminal.com slash newsletter. Carolyn Long's book is MAP v Ohio, Guarding Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures. We hope you'll consider supporting our work by joining our membership program, Criminal Plus. You can listen to Criminal, This Is Love and Fever Eads Mystery without any ads. Plus, you'll get bonus episodes. These are special episodes with me and Criminal co-creator Lauren Spore talking about everything from how we make our episodes to the crime stories that caught our attention that week to things we've been enjoying lately. To learn more, go to patreon.com slash criminal. We're on Facebook at ThisIsCriminal and Instagram and TikTok at Criminal underscore podcast. We're also on YouTube at youtube.com slash criminal podcast. Criminal is part of the Vox Media podcast network. Discover more great shows at podcast.voxmedia.com. I'm Phoebe Judge. This is Criminal. Support for this show comes from Deal. Let's be honest, most HR platforms are stitched together. That's why AI barely helps. Deal's different. It's a single AI native system for HR, IT and payroll built from the ground up. That's why AI and side deal can actually run real work, onboarding, compliance, payroll, approvals, all under your rules, whether you're five people or 50,000. Deal scales with you. See it in action at deal.com slash audio. That's D-E-E-L dot com slash audio. To put AI to work for people, visit servicenow.com.