prevent police abuses and mistakes. eleanor jones harvey reveals how the civil war can be seen in seemingly unrelated works such as landscape paintings. examines the work of several soldier artists. >> today's lecture where's the intriguing title automotive fourth amendment. the professor will speak about 30 minutes and then we will take questions. if you have questions or comments for the professor, please submit them via the q&a feature.

the director will review those communications and present to professor as many as we can get into our somewhat constrained time limits. about our speaker. she is a professor at columbia law school. she is a legal historian of criminal law and procedure in 20th century united states. her recent c-span -- book entitled policing the open road: how cars transform american freedom. examines the history of the automobile in order to explain the evolution of the fourth amendment and to explore the dilemma of police discretion in a society committed to the rule of law. the book was named one of 2019

10 best history books by the smithsonian magazine. it also received a number of prizes including the order of the court book award, the prize from the american historical association and the ralph waldo emerson award from the cap a society. in addition to publishing for academic journals, she is written for the atlantic, lem owned diplomatic, and the washington post. after earning her degree in 2007, she clerked for a judge for the u.s. district court for the district of new york. later, she clerked for the u.s.

court of appeals for the second circuit. her cb is certainly not shabby. please joining me in welcoming our distinguished speaker. professor, the societies virtual platform is now yours. we are grateful that you are joining us today. look forward to it. thank you. >> thank you so much for that warm welcome. and to share little bit up my scholarship. i've been looking forward to this since the schedule and put it on the counter. to begin, i want to share my screen. can you see this? great.

i want to begin with a paradox. cars symbolize freedom in 20th century american culture. my favorite professional -- commercial is the dodge commercial. americans got two things right: freedom and cars. the symbolism was forged from the early years of the automobile as mass production democratized mobility. as you can see in this 1911 advertisement. according to the ford motor company, women could spirits the freedom of driving which was happening before they gained the right to vote. freedom is one of the most policed aspects of american life. all now is how a minor traffic violation could lead to intrusive and abusive policing especially for people of color. automobile paradox raises a question: how did the meeting of freedom change in the 20th

century when americans came to expect and accepted a great deal of policing in the very symbol of their freedom? my book examines this question through the history of the fourth amendment. the title of my talk comes from a chapter in the book. automotive fourth amendment. by the end of my talk, i hope to not only answer the question of how freedom changed but to convince you that the fourth amendment we have today is largely the automotive fourth amendment. let us start with the text of the fourth amendment. i focus on the fourth amendment because seizure, which includes a stop of a person as well as the stop of a driver in a car is the first moment in a police encounter.

it is a constitutional provision that regulates the police. the reason why i wrote about the fourth amendment in the 20th century and not during the founding area when it was drafted and ratified was that fourth amendment cases were rare and terrell the 20th century -- until the 20th century. the cases exploded in the 1920's. as you can see in this chart. three developments contributed to this? first is the exclusionary rule. some states adopted during this. u.s. supreme court adopted it in the 1914 case meeks versus the united states. under the rule, evidence of the crime had to be excluded if it was gotten violating a constitutional right. the police got it this way, the government can use that evidence to commit the -- convict the defendant.

this incentivize fourth amendment challenges. second, national prohibition began in the 20's after the 18th amendment was ratified. this increased number of cases involved evidence that evidence was included. these two coincided with the mass production of the automobile. the ford model t debuted in 1908 and the assembly line was perfected in 1914. you can see this chart. i circle the relevant years. 1908 when the model t was debuted was 63,000 cars were manufactured. that number jumps in 1940 -- 1914 to over half a million. 1920 during prohibition it jumps to 2 million.

bootleggers favorite mode of transportation was automobile which was a moving container for transporting things. suddenly, state and federal courts throughout the country had fourth amendment cases all raising the same question: do they need a warrant to stop and search a car? judges had a hard time answering this question. on one hand, the text of the fourth amendment text people's things. this meant that a warrant was required to search and seize these things. if x is defined as a movable property. a car is a movable property. a warrant would be required to stop and search a car. on the other hand, cars to be driven off at any time and there wasn't a time to get a warrant.

that was a problem of a getaway car. prohibition enforcement depended on the ability to search cars without a warrant. some judges like this legal analyst argued that the supreme court should recognize that the fourth commitment is inconsistent with the 18th. the fourth amendment had been repealed. the difficulty was that the rule of law required courts to uphold the fourth and 18th amendments. they both required the constitution. police had to respect the fourth amendment that citizens had to obey the 18th amendment as well. many parts of the country, prohibition was unpopular. think about the roaring 20's and speakeasies. it became clear that the 18th amendment depended on greater enforcement. the difficulty cut both ways. there wouldn't be much of a conflict between these two if there were no exclusionary rules.

without the rule, a violation of the fourth amendment would not result in the exclusion of evidence. perhaps the officer might be disciplined or sued, but the government could prosecute violations of prohibition. the issue came up in states that had not yet adopted exclusionary rules. in 1923, the u.s. supreme court heard its first car case. it's not too much of a coincidence that it involved bootlegging. i just mentioned that federal courts had adopted solution real in 1914. what happened in 1923 is the justices wanted to reconsider the exclusionary rule. the brief in the case could not hide their surprise disappointment that the court was contemplating overruling the ruling in meeks versus united

states. let us talk about the carroll case which began when prohibition agents recognized carol's car and it was traveling on the road between detroit and grand rapids. they knew who he was because they try to get him during a failed undercover operation a few months earlier. agents set up a buy of three cases of whiskey but he caught onto this game because he never showed up. what the eight -- when they saw him on the road a few months later, they investigated and sure enough, they found a 68 bottles of alcohol in the car. he and his partner, the carol brothers were found guilty and fined $500. they appealed it all the way up to the supreme court arguing that the search and seizure of their car will violated the fourth amendment. the government was represented by james beck.

he agreed with the carol brothers that they were right about the law. he made an argument that we usually don't hear before the supreme court. he argued that the question changed the law. it requires a reconsideration of these rules of law. let me explain what that law is somehow that interacted with the fourth amendment. to do that, i have to explain how 19th-century lawyers thought about constitutional law. legal scholars today call 19th-century way of thinking classical legal thought. according to this, the world was divided into two spheres. public sphere and the private sphere. the government could regulate the public sphere and these could be called public rights. an example i discussed in my book is traffic laws. traffic laws regulate the use of

public roads and highways for the public safety. by contrast, individuals had to have the right to be left alone from the government. in the private sphere. it could be called private rights. an example is private property rights. applying this classical legal thought to the fourth amendment, officers could search or sees things in the private sphere without a warrant but the warrant requirement did not apply to the public sphere. officers don't need a warrant to make a traffic stop. the fourth amendment began with a question: is the thing to be searched or seized in the public sphere or the private sphere. jurors look to the text of the fourth amendment that protects people's things. these were in the private sphere. any search for seizure required a warrant. a seizure of a person is an arrest so the arrest of a person

requires an arrest warrant. it's important to keep in mind that the public or private nature of a thing was it self self evident or absolute. a new york police commissioner defended police tactics on the ground that any man with a previous record is public property. another example comes from the treatise on the limitations of police power published in 1986. he begins with the general rule that there can be no arrest without a warrant. a person could be arrested without a warrant. this could still obstruct the enforcement of the laws. there were two main exceptions for the warrant requirement which he states down here.

it could be summarized into two main exceptions. one had to do with felonies. an officer could make an arrest if they have been committed or had reasonable grounds to believe that they had committed the felony. the second exception is the misdemeanor exception which requires a bit more from the government. an officer had to see the misdemeanor take place. that means the officer had personal knowledge. in some jurisdictions, this exception was limited to breaches of peace. these warrant exceptions were referred to as the common law of arrests. another way to view this is as a list of exceptions to the warrant requirement. let me give you one more example.

the home. it was and still is the preeminent private sphere. officers have to have a warrant to search a home. that doesn't mean there can be no government regulation of homes. there are building codes to prevent fires which can authorize inspectors to check for compliance. these laws are enacted for the public interest. persons and houses generally fell within the private sphere but can be shifted over to the public sphere to justify exceptions for the public interest. there was a key difference between persons and houses. an officer can arrest a person without a warrant based on his determination of legal cause. they can receive due process afterwards with a prompt from the magistrate. government action regarding the home had to go through legislative or judicial

procedures first. lawmakers passed building and fire codes while judges decided whether to grant a warrant to search a home. in this treatise and under the common law, there was no provision for warrantless searches of a home. this was a common law that beck was referring to when it had to be reconsidered. the question that he posed for the court in his brief was whether the same rule which applies to a man's welling should also apply to the automobile. this would mean that there would be no warrant exception. the alternative is to treat cars like persons which would raise the possibility of a warrant exception. a house or a person, these were the two archetypes that would determine the issue. to determine how this would vex the supreme court throughout the 20th century, the justice suggested that in the interest

of compliance income that ability, they treat automobiles like how we treat houses. or we treat them like we treat the rest of a person. a house or a person. the question was whether a car was like a house or a person which is a weird question. as he put it, with the advent of motor vehicles, property has taken a form which has created necessity which has not yet existed. it was a new kind of property. the question was: what kind of property was a car? the difficulty was that the car had characteristics of public and private property. on one hand, cars or a private property. for many judges, it seemed obvious that they were private in the same ways that a home was private. many early 20th century americans experience their cars not as a mode of transportation

but as a new private space. as you can see, a car could be a drying room on wheels. this hit song, they sing a song. they want you to go as far as you want with me in my oldsmobile. it was such a hit that the company gave the songwriters a free car. in the very earliest years of the car, people thought of them as a setting for intimate measures. on the other hand, cars traveled public roads and were subject to a great deal of regulation as this court explained in 1923. they are particularly in the subject of government control because otherwise modern life and society would be hopelessly imperiled. they went on to explain why they were natural rights to private

property that existed independent of government. no one had the right to drive without permission from the state as you can see here. that commission was embodied in the preliminary license as what we now know as the drivers license. what the court did here it was by emphasizing the right to drive or right to operate a motor vehicle, the court shifted the analysis from a noun to a verb. from private property to individual action. this made it easier to categorize the car under the public sphere. whether the car was public or private made all the difference in deciding the fourth amendment issue. take justice nick reynolds. he was a classical conservative who valued private rights over government regulation. in the carroll case, he voted for the petitioners because he viewed the auto bill as private

property which meant that the government needed to get a warrant. three years later, the court decided in homestead versus u.s., another prohibition case, he voted for the government. it's not that he changed his mind about prohibition. he voted for the government because the opinion made clear that the prohibition agents and wiretaps did not trespass on the defendants houses. it did not enter into the private space. on the public side. justice brandeis understood the fourth amendment under this public framework. he valued public rights over private rights. voted for the government and carol because he appreciated the need for government regulation and motor vehicles which were really dangerous.

in national movement on street and highways safe -- safety. on a note here, scholars had been confused or puzzled by the vote in light of the famous dissent. his dissent was the first time it was the right to be left alone. the right to privacy. the question that scholars have asked was why did he appreciate the privacy implications when the government eavesdropped on a phone conversation but not when it search a car? his famous article on the topic provides a clue. he wrote that the rights to privacy were not absolute and did not prohibit regulations in the public interest. with new technology, he feared that privacy rights were

threatened. he was a technophobe. he almost wrote in his dissent that with the advent of television, it will be possible to pay her into the innermost recesses of the home. his clerk who went on to become a second circuit judge convinced him that televisions don't work that way even though they work that way today. back then, government couldn't look through your tv. this technophobe you extended to cars. he hated cars. he never owned or drove one. he never came to appreciate the car as a new private space like most americans who embraced it. for brandeis, they were dangerous machines that had to be regulated. there was no limit on the governments right to seize and search vehicles without a warrant which he made clear in a opinion just two years after carol.

as you can see, the problem with the private and public framework is that you could not take into account both aspects of a car. it was one or the other. individuals had to have some rights. even when they travel on public roads. the government needed to have the ability to investigate and enforce laws. this distinction did not offer guidance for balancing individual rights in the public interest. what the chief justice have to do? he did away with the public and public binary. instead, he adopted a standard based on reasonableness. after all, the text of the fourth amendment did not prohibit all search and seizures. just unreasonable ones. rather than asking whether a car was private or public, the

relevant question was whether the car search was reasonable. taft explains that if it was possible to get a warrant it would be reasonable to require one. if it wasn't possible to get one, it would be reasonable not to require a warrant. at this point, it would seem reasonableness depended on whether there was time to get a warrant. that wasn't the rule of the carol decision. testament a new rule on cars. the holding is right here. the warrant is reasonable and constitutional if the officer has reason for believing that the automobile they stop has contraband and it being transported. taft admitted in a letter to his son that this case created a new principal. even more revealingly, in a letter that he wrote he wrote i know what you said and i will

try to steer away from a suggestion that we are introducing a new law. a new principle of constitutional of constant -- and applying them to new conditions. let me explain how this decision was a new rule. first, it allowed agents to stop and search a car if they believed they had reasonable or probable cause. it allowed the police rather than a magistrate to determine legal cause. he applied a lower standard. at the time carol was decided, most prohibition offenses were misdemeanors. common law for misdemeanor required knowledge. essentially, what they did was lower the standard from knowledge to reasonable belief. the upshot is that carol, and set of creating a narrow

exception for circumstances, it allowed the police to act based on their belief and judgment. it will authorize discretionary policing. when a judge criticize michigan's version of the carol rule which today, is called the automobile exception by saying we will have officers running were no warrant could take them speeding about may search for probable cause, usurping the magistrate old -- magistrate judgment. a defendant could argue there was no probable cause to justify spot -- stop. critics found a weak spot. as you can see in this op ed, it could be stretched by the hold of officer to stretch circumstances. the officer's reasonable belief, account of reasonable belief will receive traditional charity. this is basically the phenomenon of confirmation bias.

it was guilty people who challenged car searches. innocent people do not have evidence to challenge or exclude. it made it easier for a judge to conclude that the officers belief was reasonable if there was evidence supporting the correct belief. an alabama court one as far as to say that the fact that the automobile upon search is found to be transporting contraband is wait for justifying the reasonableness of a search. whether the reasonable standard will truly serve as a restraint on the police dependent on how closely courts would scrutinize the account of reasonable cause. the decision meant that the courts did not have to look too closely. agents knew what the agents look like, what can a car they drove,

and it they were on the road between detroit and grand rapids. one of the agent said they actually they had no reason to suspect that they had no reason to believe they were transporting liquor at that moment. merely because a man's once agreed to deliver whiskey and did not, he cannot be arrested whenever he ventures to drive a car to detroit. carol was an important turning point. is the automobile as a category public or private? into a indeterminable amount of reasonableness. was this particular search reasonable. it centered the inquiry onto the officers point of view. on his belief that the search was justified. as the courts gave difference,

it expandedlet me fast-forward 8 october term when the supreme court heard two forth the mimic cases. the justices were thinking about these cases together even though they were not consolidated. both cases were argued on the same day, and the decisions came out on the same day. it's also clear the justices had a hard time deciding these cases because they were argued early in the term in october, but the decisions came out on the last day of the term in june. scholars have not looked at these two cases together, but if we do as the justices did, it reveals how they understood the boundary or the line between constitutional policing and unconstitutional arbitrary policing. the first case, wolf versus colorado, officers received an anonymous telephone call about a woman suffering from a botched

abortion, which was a crime at the time. investigators found the woman who gave the name of a chiropractor. they raided the office and looked for information to charge the doctor with abortion. all agreed this violated the fourth amendment. the opinion explains the knock at the door as a prelude to a search without a warrant only on the authority of the police, violated the fourth amendment and due process. even though the doctors office wasn't a house, the knock on the door conjured the image of a home. according to this opinion, this warrantless entry was reminiscent of totalitarian governments. recent history was nazi germany,

and it was to be condemned and enshrined in the history of basic constitutional documents of english-speaking peoples. given the importance of the fourth amendment to a democratic society, the supreme court incorporated the amendment through the due process clause, meaning although the fourth amendment didn't apply to the states, it was applicable to the states through the due process clause. incorporation has huge federalism implications, but this is only a semi-famous case because incorporation didn't make too much of a difference since every state had an analogous amendment in their state constitutions. the real issue in wolf was whether the exclusionary role would also apply to the states, would also be incorporated. the problem was this remedy of the exclusionary rule wasn't in the text of the fourth amendment, and i won't get into the debate here, which was contentious, but a majority of

the court decided it would not be incorporated. 12 years later, the court would change its mind about this, which i will get to in a minute. the important point here is the court was unanimous that the police acted arbitrarily because they searched the abortion doctor's office without a warrant. in the second case, federal investigators recognized a coop belonging to a man. i got this from his granddaughter, who had no idea her grandfather had a u.s. supreme court case and was convicted as a bootlegger. he did not touch alcohol in his later years. the fbi or the federal investigators recognized him. he had a reputation because

there was an earlier case that went all the way to the state supreme court for this same reason. based on his reputation and the observation that the rear end of the car appeared weighted down, they searched the car and found 13 cases of liquor without a warrant. it might be puzzling the supreme court would agree to hear this case, because according to opinion, he was indistinguishable from caroll on material facts. the supreme court does not hear cases involving straightforward applications of precedent unless the justices have reservations about the precedent. to most of the justices, what the officers did seemed to smack of arbitrary policing, but the problem is that carroll had said similar actions has satisfied the reasonable standard. the opinion recognized the troublesome line posed by both cases is one between mere

suspicion and probable cause. i was so shocked when i first read this that i had to read it a few times because this is a stunning admission that the facts in both cases may have fallen just short of probable cause. in deciding this, the justices could either rule the carroll standard was wrong, or conclude the application of the standard was wrong. they did not want to overrule carroll because it would hinder law enforcement too much, but some justices felt if they held that the application of the standard was wrong, that would be tantamount to overruling carroll, and that was justice rutledge's view. he indicated in the first conference, this is the memo, and he voted to reverse that is

him in the second row. i went to note here justice jackson's vote. he voted to affirm the conviction. justice rutledge wrote a memo that, you can read the handwriting, he has finally come down on one. carroll is controlling here. he changed his mind. first deciding he was going to overrule. now he is deciding carroll was controlling despite his and it shall views. -- despite his initial views. justice jackson was also torn. he initially voted to affirm the conviction under carroll and was tasked for writing an opinion for the court. his opinion ended up becoming a dissent. he had just returned as a prosecutor at nuremberg and he declared search and seizure is one of the most effective

weapons in the arsenal of every government. what is most interesting is how he argued to reverse the conviction. he wrote that when a car is forced off the road, summoned to a stop by a siren and brought to a halt under such circumstances as disclosed, we think officers are in a position of one who has entered a home. to put some limits on the police on the road, he has to analogize to a home. the majority of the justices did not find this analogy persuasive. according to rutledge, who wrote the opinion for the court, it involved the use of public highways, and this did not involve searching the home or place of privacy presented. in these situations, it was reasonable to give some leeway to the police even if they made some mistakes.

today, courts still cite this case for the proposition that in dealing with probable cause, we deal with probabilities, meaning the police can be wrong. to sum up, it fell under the public sphere where judges would defer to the police's discretion even if they had misgivings about it. placing these side-by-side as the justices did, it's clear the line between public and private, cars and houses, mattered for deciding when the fourth amendment would require an officer to get a warrant. it also mattered for determining when the police's actions are considered arbitrary or not. the history of cars changes our understanding of fourth amendment history. the history i learned in law school focuses on the one court's due process revolution,

which started in 1961. the warren court created a national standard of criminal procedure under the due process clause. in other words, the supreme court begin policing the police and creating more rights. in the standard narrative of the due process revolution, the warren court is the protector of individual rights, particularly the rights of minorities and the poor. but i argue in my book that the standard narrative only tells part of the story. the private side, the landmark fourth a minute cases that extended more rights in the private sphere not the public , sphere. i mention wolf versus colorado that incorporated the fourth amendment. the more famous case was decided in 1961, which incorporated the exclusionary rule and launched the due process revolution. in this case, the police searched a home without a warrant, a classic fourth amendment violation of the private sphere.

there were many more, thousands more public sphere car cases where the court deferred to the police. over the 20th century, the reasonable standard functioned as a differential standard that gave the police more power. from the perspective of cars, the due process revolution was not meant to be a revolution against the police's powers. this mattered. in the 20th century when the american society became an automotive society the fourth , amendment that mattered was the automotive. the traffic stop still is the most common encounter between individuals and the police, as these courts observe. as early as 1945, you see the captain of the pennsylvania state police saying traffic law enforcement provides many contacts between citizens and police. 1966, a yale law effexor talks

about how traffic stops are the chief point of contact between individual citizens and of the law. by 1997, a stanford law professor writes that most americans have never been arrested or had homes searched by police, but almost everyone has been pulled over. a poet once described the automobile as an essential, constituent feature of american life. so much so that many difficult questions about the limits of policing powers, whether or not to do with cars, it frequently came up in the context of a vehicle or traffic stop. these are questions my book covers in more detail. let me end by answering the question i posed at the beginning of my remarks -- how did the meaning of freedom change when the symbol of american freedom was subject to a deal of policing? if we look at the fourth of them it law, it did not mean freedom from policing. it meant reasonable policing.

reasonableness is the touchstone of the fourth amendment. this is a standard the carroll decision established for a modern automotive society. i will end there, to turn it over for the q&a portion. >> thank you very much. this is a fascinating presentation and we are going to be taking questions from the audience. if you have questions, please type them into the q&a section and we will get to as many as we can. to get started, one of the images on the screen that we saw was frank sinatra's driver's license. where did you get that? prof. seo: the internet.

[laughter] the internet has a lot of great images. when you are doing a history presentation, a lot of images are in the public domain now, which is great. also, government records are in the public domain as well. james: that was great. i thought it must have cost you a pretty penny if you actually owned it. [laughter] you mentioned brandeis's fear of technology and you alluded to the fact that he might not have been entirely wrong. he was wrong at the time, televisions being able to peer in your home, but where do you see the privacy interests going in that regard when we find on

our cell phones, for example, the pop-up advertisements that come very close to conversations you have been having with a friend? do you see more regulation there and invasions of privacy there in trends of the law? prof. seo: that is a really interesting question for me as well, because the epilogue of my book discusses very briefly technology in this history. one thing is questions about privacy with modern technologies like smartphones, gps devices and drones, all raise difficult questions about whether the public private distinction. the answer is the same answer the automobile posed -- it is both.

people disclose so much of themselves using technology, social media for example. the third-party doctrine says when we disclose information to third companies like internet companies, we don't have privacy expectation anymore. so there is a lot of public aspects of modern technologies and a lot of people are also advocating for government regulation of internet of things, the world wide web, a lot of new technologies. that is making arguments for the public sphere. at the same time, there are private aspects to this and people expect privacy in their chats and text messages, the pictures they take on their smartphones. the overarching theme, one of the themes of my book, is in

modern society, it is neither this or that, it is both public and private. and that is a really hard question, how do courts and the law balance the public and private aspect of everything? james: fascinating. i think you are right. we will see more cases challenging those lines and testing those lines and how they are applied. do we have other questions? >> i just have some in. >> if you bear with me, i will look for the q and a. i don't have them on my screen now so if i can bar yours for a second. bear with me one second. thank you. question, how did you come to work on automobiles and the fourth amendment? prof. seo: i like to say became

-- to say i became an accidental historian of the automobile. i went to graduate school to study the war on drugs, and i was interested in constitutional law, so the fourth amendment is the main constitutional provision that governs the police. a lot of fourth amendment challenges come up in the context of drug enforcement. i wanted to start from the beginning. i have read every fourth amendment case from the beginning through mid 20th century when they started all sounding similar. then i was more selective about the cases i read. that is when i realized fourth amendment cases were rare until the first two decades of the 20th century, and that is when i realized a lot of the cases involved cars. i think it said something about american society becoming a car society when the history of cars

was so much part of the history on the world drugs, that those two histories are connected. i became interested in looking at the history of ours, and traffic actually by accident, because i was interested in the world drugs. james: that is great. how, if at all, did the automotive fourth amendment influence application of the fourth amendment in the private context of this in the home? what was the influence of the in the private context of the home? prof. seo: i would say the influence was not directly through case law. informing the private side of

fourth amendment cases, through social phenomenon. my book argues that because of cars and a need for traffic laws and traffic law enforcement, that actually was the most significant reason for the development of modern policing as we know it today. modern policing becoming professionalized, weaponized, even increasing deference. i think it is the development of professionalized policing that has informed fourth amendment jurisprudence, even in the private sphere. i mention how in the common law, there is no warrant exception for searches of homes. the first exception for hot pursuit of a felon appears in the mid 20th century, and by then, definitely police are known as professionalized crime fighters. the social history of the policing as a profession informs the private side of fourth amendment law. james: thank you. we have time for one last question here.

i will use this one. can you make any suggestions on how your book can be used with high school students who are researching issues around driving while black? you mentioned at the outset how it can be used in discriminatory ways. prof. seo: yes. i love this question because when i wrote this book, i intentionally wrote in a very accessible way because i wanted students to read it. i think it is readable and accessible at a high school level. if excerpts had to be chosen, i would definitely choose the introduction, and one chapter. and it depends on what the teacher wanted to emphasize.

lots of students love chapter one because it deals with the problem about once laws are enacted, who will enforce them? which is a basic question i wish every policymaker would think about when they enact laws. something i thought about with covid when they were enacting all of these regulations, no more than 12 people in your home it is giving. i was thinking, who was going to enforce that? chapter one is really about the relationship between laws on the books and enforcement. chapter two is about the history of policing, which a lot of students also like. but if a teacher wants to focus on driving while black chapter , six offers a history of driving while black. james: thank you so much, just a wonderful presentation and a fascinating topic. i want to remind our audience members that you can obtain signed copies of professor seo's

book, policing in the open road. they are in the society gift shop. i will hold up the book for your visual association with it. we hope you will purchase it. it is a very thoughtful read and professor seo has given a great presentation today. i think you will find the book equally fascinating. we are very grateful for your time today, and thank you all for participating. prof. seo: thank you for coming and inviting me. i really enjoyed it today. >> american history tv on c-span3. every weekend, documenting america's story. funding comes from these television companies and more including comcast. >> you think this is just a community center? it is way more than that. >> comcast is partnering with a

housing community centers so students can from -- students from loan, families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything. >> comcast along with these television companies supports american history tv on c-span3 as a public service. >> american history tv is on social media. follow us at c-span history. >> sunday on american history tv, a panel of journalists and law professors compare the definitions of free speech in france and the united states and explores whether france's model would work here. here's a preview. >> the supreme court when it began interpreting first amendment 1919 upheld the convictions of a broad range of individuals who had sized world war i and the draft on the ground such speech could

interfere with the ability of the government to draft soldiers and to fight the war successfully and it could be prohibited. later during the communist era in the 1950's, the supreme court upheld the convictions of the leaders of the communist party and said their speech could be harmful to the nation. during the civil rights era, lower courts upheld convictions of civil rights marchers because they triggered a response by white onlookers that was seen as violent and you could punish the marchers for doing this. what the supreme court came to understand was first of all, we cannot trust ourselves to have the authority to decide what we as americans can say. in the moment, we may think we are being fair-minded and

balanced and appropriate and portion it but with hindsight, we realize our judgment has been severely colored by the circumstances and by the pressures of the time. what the court learned over those decades is that it cannot trust ourselves and it cannot trust itself to have the authority to up groove the suppression of speech when that speech might be offensive to others. and even if it causes harm, unless the harm is likely to create an eminent -- an eminent and grave danger. if one wanted to begin in 1919, 1 would have a hard time justifying such an extreme approach to's free speech. -- to free speech for justice holmes and justice brandeis embraced an approach somewhat like that early on.

it is not clear they would have carried it as far as we do today. i think a lot of first amendment jurisprudence on this issue is the product of learning from our own mistakes and learning we cannot trust ourselves. we cannot trust ourselves to allow the majority to decide what points of view can be prohibited. you can regulate speech in terms of the time, place and manner of speech not based on the methods being communicated but as soon as the government picks out particular points of view whether be antiwar speech or communist speech or civil rights speech or hate speech, we don't trust ourselves to do that. we therefore aired dramatically on the side of guaranteeing free speech. it means we are allowing speech that does cause all sorts of harm in society what we have learned is that are to deal with those harms then with the danger of giving the government the power to decide which ideas and

which points of view it will censor. >> watched full program sunday at 7:00 eastern on american history tv. >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. there is a collection of c-span products. browse to see what is new. you still have time to order the congressional directory with contact information from members of congress and the biden administration. go to c-span shop.org. >> sunday on the presidency, washington post columnist karen time multi-talks with the white house association president about reconsidering nancy reagan's legacy. here a preview. -- here a preview. >> you mentioned iran-contra. that chapter is the heart of my book because this is a scandal

cared it begins at the end of 1986. it threatens to swallow the reagan presidency. people who are too young to remember, it involved the united states was involved to have in selling arms to this government entity, iran, in exchange for the release of american hostages held in the middle east. the money from those sales was in violation of u.s. law going to the contra rebels fighting the leftist sandinista government in nicaragua. when it breaks, ronald reagan, optimist, this is going to work out, i didn't do anything wrong. it is nancy reagan who believes this calls for a complete shakeup of the white house staff . starting with the chief of

staff. her husband does not want to do it. they go round and round about this for weeks. he is like, i am not going to sacrifice other people to save my own hide. at one point he is heard to scream at her get off my back. ultimately, she wins. the other thing she does, which is just as a and maybe more important was bringing ronald reagan around to the point where he could admit to the country and admit to himself that he had in fact in violation of all his promises and claims to the contrary had arms for hostages.

confidence back in his integrity learn more about nancy reagan sunday on the presidency at 8pm eastern 5pm pacific pacific on american history tv. up next we visit this smithsonian american art museum where an exhibit features paintings and photographs created during the civil war. curator eleanor jones harvey describes, how art was influenced by the conflict and how the 19th century public saw symbolic significance for the war and landscape paintings and genre paintings or scenes of everyday life. we begin with a press briefing about the exhibit and then we follow along for a tour of the galleries. this is part one of a two-part program. this is a project that's b