about his campaign and the democratic party at a luncheon in washington, d c governor dukakis when the democratic nomination but was defeated george h.w. bush in the general election. >> i want to welcome you to our washington bureau and another in our series of newsmaker luncheon. our guest today is governor michael dukakis of massachusetts. a leading contender for his party's nomination for president. he is serving his third term on beacon hill. his first ended in defeat with massachusetts in deep trouble ly asnown unflattering taxachusetts. widely regarded as a changed man. he was elected, reelected in 1986 and takes credit for what is widely heralded as an

economic miracle in massachusetts. welcome, governor. mr. dukakis: good to be here. poll showedgallup jesse jackson first among democrats and you second with showed none of the above with about 43%. you think none of the democratic contenders, yourself included has yet broken out of the pack and establish themselves? first tois: let me say the poll takers and the publishers who pay them, they will all be absently after -- they will all be obsolete after iowa. people recognize certain people and don't recognize others. i'll think the situation is very different from what it has been in presidential election after

presidential election. as a recently graduated law student going to the democratic national convention and hundreds of democrats were demonstrating to bring adelaide stevenson back for the third time he currently did not think john kennedy was presidential enough. i think what will happen, it was one of the nations leading pollsters that said this, this is a campaign in desperate need of voters. , the firsto months real live of american citizens are going to go to caucuses in iowa and to the primaries in new hampshire and we will get a sense of who is out there and once that happens, not only will butfield change somewhat, they will focus on the candidates. i am pleased at how our campaign has been going and we are well ahead of where i thought we would be in terms of organization and financing and relevant strength.

things andre all until you are tested by voters, we won't know. debate was notbc the easiest format in the world. i thought the democratic candidates generally did well. on, thats time goes will continue to be the case. as voters make choices, 1, 2, 3 of us or so will begin to move ahead. >> that leads into a second question. had the impression this week, huge impression, the question arises how does any future president present himself as the kind of man whose big enough, tough enough and withienced enough to deal

this new star of the international horizon? mr. dukakis: i can't think of anyone better than a seasoned executive in nine years, going into his 10th, i think you have to prove yourself on the basis of your record and how you present yourself. i watched the full power of gorbachev, one of the few two hours of television i have watched and he strikes me as a very tough and savvy guy who was under great pressure at home to deal with an economic situation that is turning around. it may well be that the evidence of this week helped him to do that and there's no question that's one of the reasons you hit the table and make the proposal he is making. secretary scholz this morning at least innt that his discussions and negotiations, there's an and or miss preoccupation with a

serious domestic situation and i think somebody who recognizes that, who is tough and reasonably intelligent and savvy can go to work and take it vantage of what this week means and go beyond it. i think you have to prove yourself and that's what the campaign is all about. >> what is the biggest character building off -- character building thing you have had to face? mr. dukakis: 1978. that was a personal rejection of mike dukakis by the people who voted for me in the first place. people who i loved working with in a state that i loved. in circumstances where i thought that ismaking progress,

unquestionably the toughest experience of my life. youou chuckled when i said came out a changed man. mr. dukakis: chastened as well as changed. >> what changed you? mr. dukakis: most of us in this business, if we have been reasonably successful, we are with people who haven't failed very often. that was the first time i had really failed. andomething i loved doing where i thought i had begun to make significant progress and real change. was i had what i referred to as my involuntary sabbatical at the place across the river which was a wonderful and where i worked hard. i rumored the faculty and taught

a heavy load and did a lot of things. opportunity to not only get over the pain of the defeat the get a certain perspective on what i had been doing almost continuously for 18 years and to do so in an environment where as you teach, you are also reflecting on what you did. had 110, 150 people in the calf -- in the class who wanted to know how you would have done it. i was reluctant to tell them and i would take five minutes at the end of the 90 and say this is what i would have done. it was a terrific opportunity to share experiences with people and public sector and work through some of the mistakes and failures and do so in a rare environment. >> [indiscernible] mr. dukakis: i have a dear

friend who is a former attorney general of massachusetts who lost more elections than i did before he was finally elected attorney general. losing buildsf character, he had all the character he needed. it's not something i recommend. it made me i think a better person, a more sensitive person, and a much more able public servant. there's no question in my mind i'm a much better governor today than i was when i started out. if i'm elected, i will be a better governor for having gone through the experience. i just don't want to do it again. and bruce babbitt and other democrats seeking the nomination have made much of the fact that you balanced state government budgets and administered a state in a way that is acclaimed. i had lunch with senator paul simon and he seemed to ridicule that notion.

, kind of derisively, that the combined state budget of arizona and massachusetts would keep the pentagon running for three days. the point he was making is a much bigger arena and budget things are so much larger than that. but the principle is the same. do you provide the kind of leadership that you provide in these circumstances? i have been putting my tent executive budget together. there may be fewer zeros at the end of the number but i have to confront the fact that my top budget guy came to me and said a result of the uncertainty in the economy, we have to revise our estimate down $280 million."

proportionally, i don't know what that would work out too, but i have had to go back to the drawing board and say no to a lot of people and a lot of constituencies and priorities that i believe in very strongly because the reality is those revenue estimates have me down $200 million. fundamentally, you have to make some very tough choices and confront meeting unmet needs and a certain finite amount of resources. the problem in this town as people have had a difficult time doing it. not fault the congress because the legislative body has a role to play, but i have been a legislator and chief executive enemies issues of spending and taxing, if the chief executive does not leave, the result is chaos. that is what we have had here.

that is what chief executives do. they judgment, coming to presidency in that area, there are other areas that can provide you with experience and so on. experiences having to step up to the plate and submit an executive budget that is a responsible document is an important strength that one has that one does not get from being a legislator. you are on the receiving end and i have been there as a legislator and its different. >> one thing the polls have shown is that the american people by and large believe republicans are better at economic issues and prosperity that democrats. as a democrat, you have shifted

your message around a theme of the economy. how do you get around what appears to be a fairly part of some obstacle? mr. dukakis: i'm not sure it runs very deep. if you look at the state and local level, you see democrats win year after year as governors, senators, local officials -- the democratic party is the majority party at the state of local level and has been for a long time. had a substantial congressional majority during the reagan years and now back in a majority position in the senate. i think it is because of the state and local level, there's a strong perception that democrats by and large are very good and effective on the issues of jobs and the economy. no question we have been having difficulty and the presidential elections are making that same message but if there's one strength i bring to this campaign, it is certainly some

credibility and a track record of most issues. i think that is an important strength. gobetter be somebody who can with real issues, fiscal issues, and that somebody where someone with balanced budgets who has made those tough choices really can present a strong face for the democratic party. i was not kidding at the nbc debate when i said i would love to get one of those republicans on the platform to talk about darling and spending and the fiscal policies we have had. somebody who comes to that platform with a track record with a strength on fiscal and economic issues brings something that is important, but there's no question the democratic party stock and trade historically since the new deal has been strength on the issues of jobs

and the economy. when we lose that issue, we lose a lot and i hope we can get it back. >> the iran-contra affair has brought in the notion of the management style of president reagan and he has been accused management file -- what is your credo? i have a reputation for being a strong manager and i delegate more than i used to. maybe the natural evolution of a management style that most of us have. when you are the new governor and anxious to put your imprint on the government right away, you tend to get deeply involved in lots of detail and as you learn on the job, most of us if you aree job,

growing and evolving, you make progress and i do that a lot better these days. i'm a debtor listener than i used to be. i also know in nine years of experience that the caliber of the people you pick is extremely important. your ability to build a good relationship with your legislative body is a good part of what you do and i think we do these things a lot better. jobink i do a better finding the balance between the two. >> would you schedule time on the white house tennis court? carters a famous jimmy -- >> jimmy carter is on one and of the spectrum and ronald reagan

is on the other. mr. dukakis: there's not much doubt of who is in charge in the government. i spent or my time these days anding with my legislature building coalitions, doing those kinds of things, thinking more about what i'm saying and how i am saying it. my first year or two were two very different here's. we had the highest unemployment rate in the country and there's a fair amount of learning when you are suddenly thrown into that. president, it's something halfway between -- >> when president reagan was elected, a lot of people were surprised that his cabinet selections. people say that he seemed like a

nice guy, but this guy watts or fill in the blank, forget it. can you give us some idea of the types of people you would have in the white house in your administration? mr. dukakis: i can't name names and i haven't thought about it and i wouldn't anyway. this is not the time or the place -- >> doesn't that put voters in the place of being -- mr. dukakis: one of the things you get as an executive for nine years is you can take a look at the people i have selected to be of my cabinet, you will see a strong and able group of people. there, my thinking has evolved as well. i would be very unlikely to pick something for a top position in my staff or cabinet that did not have some public sector experience. i want people who are skilled at

working in the public sector. discovered every once in a while you don't find somebody who has no experience or who can be successful, but there's a special skill and ability to being effective in government .nd in a political environment usually you have to learn it in a political environment. if i'm elected, you will see who have had some substantial experience in the public sector, in politics, who can deal with the congress, deal as well astencies having the brains and intellect to do the job. >> can i explore your mind a bit on nuclear strategy? it looks quite possible that an opportunity is coming up to reduce offensive weapon things,

perhaps not in reagan's term. what is your idea as to what would be a safe and appropriate measure to mix weapons where you don't increase vulnerability and increase the security and stability? i'm not sure i could spell it out in detail. is some of the day those have now been reached and from what i have seen, i think they are quite reasonably appropriate. cut% cut is an achievable for a major step in the right direction if they were --cessful and if the varick if the verification was working. the imfstart with agreement and the 50% cut and

pursue the cuts aggressively. the senate and the congress are going to insist on it and i think it's a real opportunity to do it. if gorbachev is serious about much deeper cuts, i think that is an opportunity to pursue. is ank the combination significant achievement since i in ourhink star wars is national interest. >> [indiscernible] mr. dukakis: we have an interesting situation where the democrats are going to be the president's allies. theproud of the fact all of

democratic candidate -- none of the democratic candidate's are only one oft and the republicans is. the democratic majority in the senate i think needs to be shortly after the , i said that radical right has had a stranglehold on the republican party and it's one of the reasons only one of the six republicans support them. in any event, it is for the national interest. you have the responsibility to step up to the plate and support the president on the issue of this kind where he has done the right hand and i have no problem doing that. that's the best policy and probably the best a la ticks. -- best politics.

>> you are perceived as a liberal and the south is a generally conservative region. why should the conservative south vote for a liberal governor from all places, massachusetts? mr. dukakis: the same reason they did in 1960. i think they saw in john kennedy someone who had a vision of the future and had the kind of strength and energy and leadership ability that they wanted in the white house. in states like georgia and john in states like georgia, he got a larger percent of the popular vote. the self is not a foreign country. as i campaign across the south, i don't hear anything much different that i hear in other

parts of the country. they are concerned about jobs, the quality of schools, the quality of the environment, decent health care at an affordable cost. they want a strong national defense but would like to see us work hard to build a more stable and peaceful world. the reasons i'm doing surprisingly well in the south these days are that these are issues that concern them and concern me. i don't understand what the definition of liberal and conservative is in this country anymore. i've cut taxes five times and if i know one things -- if i know one thing it is you cannot believe strong economic future on fiscal sand. we have a lot of self-styled conservatives who could not balance a budget of life depended on it. whose liberal and whose conservative? i'm tough on violent crime. my state has had the biggest

drop on violent crime except for one state. i'm also a big believer in the bill of rights. whose liberal and whose conservative? the rules of law is the most conservative principle in the history of mankind. and a principle i believe in strongly. much evidence that this administration takes the rule of law very seriously. i don't know what these labels mean anymore. i think people in the south are concerned about some very basic issues that face this country. i'm going to do everything i can to campaign hard and successfully on those issues. >> [indiscernible] have done asu opposed to ronald reagan? how would you have handled it? mr. dukakis: i don't think it would have happened for one thing.

policies we have been implementing -- i don't want to say implementing -- it's mind-boggling. this is not voodoo economics, it is wack oh economics. tire member the mid winter meeting in february of 1983. it was my first meeting of the governors when, with great governors of the 50 produced a rather detailed deficit reduction and it was rather detailed. we work hard and felt good about it and then as we normally do, we went to the white house to present our puzzles to the president.

reagan was treasury secretary. pride, theyrable presented this deficit reduction resolution. after an hour and half, we came out scratching our heads. we could not believe it. deficit ballooning up all over the place. here we were, 15 men and women sweating bullets to deal with and thesecal problems folks in the white house just did not seem to have a clue as policythis was a fiscal -- [indiscernible] what bruce babbitt keeps trying to goad you into saying.

like bruce a lot but i also believe that we and i mean the american people camera -- the american people cannot let themselves get trapped. what david stockman told us they would do, which was to create such a fiscal mess that we would have to attack important method 40's. i won't let myself be put in that box. i don't think the american people ought to be put in that box. back ofot balance the $9,000 people who are on or $10,000 social security. the social security trust fund ought to be taken out of the budget. this is a phony budget balancing exercise. the trust fund can only be used

for social security. there's 20 of money in the trust fund or cost-of-living increases. trying to show a lower deficit by showing a cost of living is phony and bad policy. repeatedly and i will say it repeatedly in the campaign and afterwards, no serious candidate can rule out taxes. i have also said emphatically and will continue to say when there's $110 billion in uncollected taxes, the first and you ought to do is go collect everything you can of that 110 billion dollars. if you need additional taxes, you ask for additional taxes. i think that's very straightforward and direct.

i think it is unfair and unnecessary to be talking about eliminating or sharply reducing modest cost-of-living increases in an effort to in a phony way felons -- balance the budget. spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a space plane that will make it possible for investment anchors to travel from new york to tokyo in hours. i think we can save billions by passing the welfare reform bill by having hundreds of thousands of families get off welfare. i think we can reduce farm subsidies over time, especially .y developing new markets it is the domestic side of the budget that has taken a hit and i think most of the cutting will have to take place on the defense side.

new trade figures are out today showing a record-setting trade deficit. what would you do to reduce the trade deficit? mr. dukakis: i would begin by getting the country's fiscal house in order. the reason we have a massive trade deficit is because the president was able to persuade congress you could raise defense spending and cut taxes and balance the budget. it was a fairy than and it's a fairytale now. it put a 40% penalty on what we produced and it gave every day we were producing outside of this country a discount. it destroyed the industry and took over markets and they are not going to give up those markets. there will be some reduction in that trade balance

if only because american goods now relatively are a good deal cheaper on the international market than they used to be. in dollar terms, it's going to take a long time to do that. it has to begin with a clear demonstration that we are prepared to get our fiscal house in order and get serious about economic policies that make us competitive again. this problem is not going to go away. program coupled with tougher tax collection, the internal revenue service doesn't think of that on a federal level. what they argue is the state programs that have been modestly taxessful have picked up

payers -- something like 97%. what is your response to that? mr. dukakis: my responses the irs says tax compliance is at 81%. obviously, there's no way the state is going to pick up people who decide they are going to pay their state taxes but not at all taxes. irsave a ceiling which the says we currently have at the national level, but if the irs says one in five taxpayers is not paying the taxes that he, an, or it does, that seems enormous point of opportunity. their analysis was confirmed by almost exactlyas on target on the 20% noncompliance.

that is a very, very big amount of money. incidentally, there's a tremendous advantage to doing this for the state. five dollars in additional revenue, the states will get one, given the sharing and tax and ministration we do these days. with that increase in federal enforcement, we can give the states back what they lost on revenue share. thatnk we can do more than , but the dorgan task force estimated $105 billion. were be well challenged. amnesty, by the way. the figures we have on that, and they are about 10 billion, there by a couplesis done

of caltech economists that argued simply by getting audit you could raise close to $50 billion. that gives you a range. until thever know president comes to office and is serious about this. the irs is beginning to take revenue enforcement seriously, but this is a uniquely executive function. every once in a while, one of my running mates were rivals says if there was so much money, why wouldn't congress put it in the budget question mark because congress doesn't collect revenue. you can hardly blame congress for not putting it in its

the first thing you do is go and collect your receivables. president and the russians reneged on the inf agreement, what would you do? you have to rethink your options and decide whether or not you want to reintroduce medium and short range missiles in europe or if there's something else you want to do. think the russians are operating on good faith. every evidences they are and i think one of the reasons, maybe principal reason they are doing the sovietdoing is union is a society with very serious, far-reaching economic problems. all you evidence we have to date in the soviet union is that while gorbachev's initiatives

internationally are well average, life for the russian citizen hasn't changed at all. i thought he said was a guy under very heavy domestic pressure to produce and one of the reasons i think they are likely to comply. if they don't, all bets are off. >> you seem to be advocating you were [indiscernible] one of the most popular things i have done my governorship is revenue enforcement. vast majority of americans pay their taxes, pay them on time. it's usually taken out of our paycheck and they don't like the notion someone is getting away with murder. polls inhe 90's in my my state. it's a very popular effort and -- this is an issue of basic fairness.

why should the overwhelming majority of americans pay their taxes why -- while some people get away with murder? , it's oney experience of the most popular things i have done. the other side of this, and it is an important part of revenue enforcement, is treating honest taxpayers is valued customers, providing good taxpayer service. in my state, you get your refund nine days after you send your refund. no joke, nine days. i get letters from people for the first time in my political career saying thank you for my refund. that is the way you encourage it. you answer the phone and try to provide taxpayer assistance. we have forms you can read and we have worked hard to develop those. >> do you think the irs will answer telephones? [laughter] you want to collect

revenue and encourage voluntary compliance and make people feel good as you can help them to feel, where do we continue with a situation where the computers write-down and you can't read the forms? -- the computers breakdown and you can read the forms. this is creating a system where you treat the taxpayers well and encourage voluntary compliance and actually increase compliance. you have to do with lots of his ability. i'm not kidding when i tell you this has been one of the most popular things i have done. cuomo -- notrio only that, you get a lot of people walking around unconscious for a long time. you give them an opportunity to

finally fess up and get into the computer permanently. >> let's come back to nuclear strategy for a moment. a school of thought that one of the reasons that imf treaty was signed weekend in washington and we appear to be appear to progress we be making on long-range weapons is because president reagan has hung so tough on star wars. stored you give away the from the reagan point of view. you have said you are not for star wars, you don't think it's in the national interest. chip? the bargaining what's the incentive on the soviet union to come to the table and make a deal with you as opposed to a president from him they are desperately trying to get something? a domestic: situation which is very serious.

to beviet union is going a second or third rate economic power they don't begin shifting resources away from their military. they are already in danger of heading in that direction, and i think what you have is a society in deep trouble and a new soviet leadership that understands that and is desperately tryinto dig themselves out of this mess in a way which may or may not succeed. know how you continue with the heavy-handed economic planning that society has and at the same time, move toward a price system. they will have to decide to take some unemployment and some of the frictions of a free and more open economy. to put upou have with, but you have to assume it's going to be part of a much more open economic system. that, i think has been the most powerful incentive to get to the table and stay there.

i don't know whether gorbachev believes what he says, but if he says a strategic weapons reduction agreement is in hand, if this united states is abmared to abide i the treaty interpretation, then i assume the agreement would be in hand, so what's the need for a bargaining chip? >> a minute ago, you disputed whether the words of liberal and conservative meant anything. this came out in the south a lot. let me read -- let me try to save a different way. in your administration, with the federal government take on more responsibilities or shed some its current response abilities? i think it depends.

we showed some responsibilities and take on others. it would be a much more aggressive and activist economic leadership, but i don't think that requires the creation of another 75 bureaucracies in washington. there's a lot of exciting work going on with real private partnerships and people involved in the business community with mayors, andunions, it's exciting to see that kind of thing go on all over the country. universities and colleges getting involved in all of this -- what is needed is a president who understands what is going on and who can build on that and provide some resources in congress and a lot of leadership to take advantage of what is a very exciting new era in economic hardships all over the country. that is a much different attitude than we have today but it is not a heavy-handed

leadership. it is a leadership that built on what is going on and places all over the state of texas, places where this is going on and very promising things. they are looking for some federal help and some leadership. >> about whether the government takes on more responsibilities were not? mr. dukakis: it all depends on the particular problem. i have become the first governor in the country to propose a plan for universal health care. that is going to involve a state insurance company. it's a plan to use the existing insurance mechanism and existing health care providers.

we will require most employers health employers provide care through the private sector and we will take care of what is already a hidden surtax in .veryone's premium is that the government taking on more responsibility? in some ways it will mean the -- won't mean the creation of state-run insurance, that is not what we are talking about. when you put it on the spectrum of more or less responsibility it certainly reflects the view that in 1987, the united states ought not to be the only nation in addition to south africa that doesn't provide citizens with

some kind of basic health security. but we are using the existing health care system and insurance system to provide it. saidst: a fellow democrat none of you are currently against -- andaid in terms of stature caliber, of you measure up to bush. that kind of criticism does not help the democratic cause in the south. obviously republicans will seize it. what is your response? was, he and he the two youngwere southern political leaders in 1960 that supported jack kennedy when nobody thought he could win in the south. they were prepared to do that and did it. incumbent we have an

running against another son of massachusetts, maybe we can persuade them to do the same. >> what you described sounds to me like regional warfare on the economic front and i am wondering what role you see the federal government having. mr. dukakis: a lot, and it something i believe in strongly. if there is one thing the massachusetts miracle has demonstrated, it's that a combination of public resources and private initiative working together and make an enormous difference in turning around defining regions but there has to be a very strong presidential leadership to make it work. if all we end up with is one state outbidding another by granting more and more concessions to any company then this will work. that is why strong leadership is your wired to not only create a

sense of community, but in providing something that makes it possible for us to provide special help to those states and those regions and businesses who are paired to invest and expand there. in that sense i think what's happened in my state is quite encouraging. we had exactly that same situation and we have been extremely successful in helping seriously depressed regions of the state turn around and come back. >> but you do that at the disadvantage of another state. might've beent thought that we were doing it at the disadvantage of other region's. one of the challenges to being senseent is to create a and feeling of community and common purpose which has everybody pulling together so that not only massachusetts

continues to do well but there is a national commitment to helping belmont, texas and the rio grande valley at 21%. -- northernota lost minnesota lost 10,000 jobs. that's part of what it means to build a strong country. that's one of the things the president can provide. that's the kind of leadership you have to provide if there's a feeling that special incentives have to be provided to help troubled regional economies but i think the president can do that and i've seen it work at the state level. >> one last brief question. with your emphasis on the massachusetts economy in your campaign, every time a plant , massachusetts has the

potential to become a big deal. that thee any signs massachusetts economy is weakening and if it did, would it be a problem for you? >> but me say this. one of the things that bring to this campaign is a certain amount of experience in being successful in dealing with some very serious economic problems. on the other hand, the speech i delivered at the cuomo forum and other things i been talking about, dealing with these as national and international issues which is what they are. time, i take my responsibilities as governor very serious way. -- seriously. and i am working very hard to make sure the economic success of my state continues. our unemployment rate was 2.7% last month.

we have a serious labor shortage in many parts of the state which is a wonderful problem to have, but it serious and we have thousands of jobs going begging. my statesl thrust of message is coming in january and we can see if we can reach out to every last citizen. they care and other things that help people become part of our success and be self-sufficient. there isn't a state in the country i believe that is better equipped to do that and we will work hard to do it. while there will be a layoff or a plant closing. the thing that i think makes massachusetts different, and i hope these are policies which i can bring to the country as well, is being one of the few states that has a comprehensive plant is in law -- closing law.

it has an industrial stabilization program to help companies turn around and come back before. effective strong and retraining program, which includes supplemental benefits and health insurance and training for workers who, regrettably in some cases, do lose their jobs. it has been very successful and i think most will tell you it is a real model for the country. hard,l continue to work build the economic strength. that is something i and my people work at everyday. economy, ormic maybe announce another -- not everybodyy, is buying chevrolet celebrities even though the governor drives and one. i can't sell the cars from general motors. they put a quarter of a billion

dollars in that plant. there are lots of cars on dealers lots and they can't keep producing more. it will probably open up for spring and it hasn't been the only time operations were suspended. we are fortunately looking at an economic future which, barring some national catastrophe is very strong. the thing that pleases me the most is that it is not economic success that is limited to boston. i was in southeast massachusetts on monday. it's the most horrible thing in the world to go to a region that unemployment five years ago and seeing help wanted signs. that has not been an accident. to have worked very hard, turned it around. the sense of pride, spirit, and confidence we have about the

future in that region and others is terrific. . don't see any real prospect but what i'm seeing around the state,, you have regions, communities that in some cases are dying. possibley think it's to create this sense of national community. at least i want to try. >> thank you very much. >> with the 2016 presidential contest in full swing, american history tv will look back to past elections to show you archival coverage of candidates on the campaign trail. join us for road to the white

house rewind every sunday morning at 10:00 eastern and continuing through next year's election on american tv on c-span3. all persons having business before the honorable, the supreme court of the united states are advised to get her attention. >> coming up on c-span's landmark cases. andhis is a piece of paper to read it and see what it was. which they refused to do so she grabbed it out of his hands and looked at it. and she putarted this piece of paper into her bosom. very readily, the police officer put his hands into her bosom and remove the paper. after --after, and handcuffed her.

while the police officers started to search the house. >> in 1957, cleveland police went to a home of who they believe was harboring a suspected bomber and demanded entry. warrant,ed without a later with a document they claimed was a warrant they forced themselves in and searched. not finding the suspect, they confiscated the trunk containing obscene pictures in the basement. she was arrested and sentenced for seven years for contraband. she sued and the case made it to the supreme court. we will explore the case and the matter of evidence obtained through illegal searches and seizures. that's coming up on the next landmark cases monday at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span3, and c-span radio. for background on each case, order your copy of the landmark cases