while mapp v. ohio does not enjoy the household recognition of a case like miranda versus arizona, it affected a profound change in criminal procedure. tonight dr. carolyn long examines the procedure in part of her discussion of her latest book. as you know, it's titled "mapp v. ohio: guarding against unreasonable searches and seizu seizures." dr. long is the associate director of the college of liberal arts, director of the program of public affairs and associate professor in the department of political science at washington state university in vancouver, washington. she earned her bachelor of arts from the university of oregon and her ph.d. in political science from rutgers university. dr. long has also been a fulbright scholar and is the author of many scholarly articles and book chapters. the book she presents tonight is her third. please welcome dr. carolyn long. [ applause ] >> thank you for the kind introduction. before i begin i would like to thank the co-sponsors of the event, university press

mapp v. ohio in 1961. mapp knew she only had one option left, the united states supreme court. when her petition for review arrived at the court it really emphasized the on sent statute in the state because that's where the argument had been up until that point. her attorney suggested that the law was overly broad and it was unconstitutional. in aid of the nine jest suss on the court decided to hear the case. in the legal briefs and oral argument in mapp v. ohio the focus was almost exclusively on the constitutionality of that on sent statute in the state of ohio. there was brief mention of the exclusionary rule in a brief by the american civil liberties union and a brief conversation in oral arguments, but other than that it was really a first amendment case. so what happened at the conference? well, justice thomas clark's private papers reveals that the conference discussion over mapp v. ohio also focused almost exclusively on this first amendment issue and they said it was clearly unconstitutio

mapp v. ohio almost focused exclusively on this first amendment iesh and that they said it was clearly unconstitutional under a federal precedent. the question as to whether or not the exclusionary rule should be extended to the states was raised briefly by justice douglas, it was dismissed by the other justices. but something odd happened -- and so the conference ended with the court unanimously agreeing that the object senty statute was unconstitutional. something odd happened after the conference happen. in mapp v. ohio a seemingly straightforward case about the girl with the dirty books turned into a landmark supreme court decision about the fourth amend. in his autoography chief justice earl warren explains that after the conference discussion clark, pondering this idea about the exchewingary rule turned to justices hugh oh black and william brennan in an elevator and remarked wouldn't this be a good case to apply the exclusionary rule and do what mapp didn't do? we call this issue fluid it i

terri v. ohio which was the case where the supreme court said that police would be able to stop somebody summited of committing a crime and doing a limited pat down. the stop and frisk. of course, that was constitutional. and some would argue, and i think they're right, that the reason why the court allowed this is because the political backlash it's involved to something completely different. so now even if you were stopped for a traffic offense, you can be stopped and frisked by law enforcement and that's considered constitutional. even if you were a passenger in a car that has been stopped by law enforcement, you can be frisked by law enforcement. so it shows you how much that original ruling has changed throughout the years. and what is interesting is original ruling in terry v. ohio you stop and frisk someone because of officer safety. it makes complete sense. you don't want to stop somebody and have them injure you when you're trying to protect public peace. . it somebody is being frisked and

mapp v. ohio regarding unreasonable search and seizures. american history tv and our landmark series begin every night this week at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >>> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979 c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. >>> a look at brown v. board of education continues now with a tour of one of the african-american elementary schools in topeka, kansas in 1951. president george h.w. bush signed a bill that designated it as a school in 1982. ♪ ♪ >> we are standing in the kindergarten room of the monroe elementary school at brown v. board of education historic site in topeka, kansas. this was one of the four elementary schools operating in topeka in 1951 when the brown v. board of education case was filed in district court. the brown v. board of education case is really a small piece of a much larger case that started really back in the late 1920s and early 1930s, which was part of the national association for the advan

tonight, the 1961 case of mapp v. ohio. involves dollree mapp, and ohio one, who refused to let police search her house without a warrant. it is also a case that involves some back stairs entry at the supreme court itself, and all of this involved into a case that was one of the series in the warren courts that changed policing in america. we welcome you with us this program and hope you have been with us throughout the series as we've been learning so much about the supreme court. let me introduce you to our two guests. i should tell you before i did we've been enjoying talking about the case on the set. i think dollree mapp would like it because she was a careful character. meet carolyn long who wrote the book on this case. its sub title is guarding against unreasonable searches and seizures. she is a professor of policy and public affairs. renee hutchins is close by here in washington d.c. maryland university law school professor, codirector of the appellate and post conviction advocacy clinic and also a former justice d

tonight, 1961 case of mapp v. ohio. an ohio woman refused to let the police search her house without a warrant. all this evolved into a case that was one of a series in the warren court that changed policing in america. we welcome you with us this program and hope you've been with us throughout the series as we've been learning so much about the supreme court. let me introduce you to our two guests. i should tell you before i do we've actually been enjoying talking about the case itself a little onset. meet carolyn long who literally wrote the book on the mapp v. ohio case, guarding against unreasonable searches and seizures, she's based at washington state university at vancouver where she's a professor of politics, philosophy and public affairs. welcome to the series. >> thank you for inviting me. >> renee hutchins, maryland university law school professor, co-director of the appellate and post conviction advocacy clinic and also a former federal prosecutor in the justice department's tax division. she's working on a

tonight the 1961 case of mapp v. ohio.t involves dollree mapp, an ohio woman who refused to let the police search her house without a warrant. it is also a case that involved some back stairs entry to the supreme court itself, and all of this evolved into a case that was one in a series in the warren court would change policing in america. we welcome you with us to this program and hope you have been with us throughout the series as we've been learning so much about the supreme court. let me introduce you to our two guests. i should tell you before i do we have been enjoying talking about the case on the set. i think dollree mapp was like that because she's quite a colorful character. meet carolyn long who wrote the book on the case. it is called "guarding against unreasonable searches and seizures," based at the washington state university at vancouver, a professor of politics, philosophy and public affairs. welcome to the series. >> thank you for inviting me. >> renee hutchins is here in d.c., a law school professor, cod

mapp v. ohio. escobe escobedo v. illinois. and miranda v. arizona in 1966. and then terry v. . >> that was the so-called stop and frisk case which legitimizes officers of a person suspected of a crime to frisk them because they might be carrying a weapon. >> we talked about the big controversy of this decision. the court was 5-4 decision. they argued it strongly on both sides as well. congress also got into the act and passed the omnibus crime control and safe streets act. what were they trying to do? >> congress was out rage bide the decision because criminals were going free. and so in 1968 congress passed the law essentially re-establishing the old voluntary test for admitting confessions in federal court. >> we've got 20 minutes left, and wanted to talk about what's happened to miranda in the years ensuing. so there's been a flb of cases and we've referred to some of them that have begun to refine miranda. what are the most important ones of notes the. >> the dickerson case, and professor cassel had a crucial role in it. i'll let him tee in it. but the crucial argument was

in 1969 the nine the supreme court ruled in brandenburg v. ohio that you could criminalize speech.it was a nursing decision because they struck down the ohio language, which it was incredibly broad. but in striking it down, they endorsed the idea that you can have violent speech. for many of us we had a hard time accepting the concept of speech as violent. and what you see in this tragic case is how words can be treated like a murder weapon. and what that implies for us as a country. what you had in this case, which i think was abundantly obvious, was not in my view a crime of murder. you had to teenagers, both of whom had emotional difficulties. both of whom had diagnose problems that they were struggling with. and they were brought together in a moment of tragedy. that tragedy was multiplied by the court, not resolved by the court. >> i heard what you said as a qualifier and i guess he enough of the audience in a second will ask a question. so you think that there is no amount or quality or lack of quality of words spoken as words whether orally or in writing or in a text or in a

. >>> up next on american history t on c-span3, more about the case mapp v. ohio in which the supreme court found that all evidence police obtained through illegal search and seizure is inadmissible in state courts. we'll hear from carolyn long, a college professor and author of a book on the case. >> good evening, everyone. i'm sure you kno

next, a look at mapp v. ohio. the 1961 case strengthened fourth amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, making it illegal for evidence obtained without a warrant to be used in a criminal trial in state court. we'll start with landmark cases. ♪ >> all persons having business before the honorable, the supreme court of the united states admonished to draw neef and give their attention. >> "landmark cases," c-spans special history series produced in cooperation with the national constitution center. exploring the human story and constitutional drama between 12 historic supreme court decisions. ♪ >> number 759, ernest miranda, petitioner, versus arizona. >> we will hear arguments in number 18,

next, a look at mapp v. ohio. the

next, a look at mapp v. ohiothe 1961 case which strengthened the fourth amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, making it illegal

tonight, we'll look at mapp v. ohio. found evidence cannot be used in criminal prosecutions if it is collected in violation of fourth amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. that's tonight on c-span3 at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> landmark cases returns live next february on c-span. join us to hear more stories of the people who sparked ground breaking cases and the justices and lawyers who were key to the supreme court's review. >> c-span has been on the road meeting with winners of this year's student cam video documentary competition. at lar mee high school in laramie, wyoming, accept her first place prize of $3,000 for her documentary on dependence on fossil fuels. in golden, colorado, ethan cranston accepted a second place prize of $1500 for his documentary on cybersecurity and third place award in denver of $750 went to tenth graders dunham perry and max for digital theft and hacking documentary. st. thomas moore high school in rapid city, south dakota, where audrey cope, grace and carolyn won thir

next, a look at mapp v. ohio.961 case strengthened fourth amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, making it illegal for evidence obtained without a warrant to be used in a criminal trial in state court.

the time when the incorporation debate was going on two or three years later, the court decided mat v ohio, griffin, the classic cases of the war in court, and one thing that offended him in those decisions was not so much the criminal decision as such, but the notion imposed on the states. he believed in the notion of the states laboratories to develop their own criminal procedures. hess praise, to use his phrase, extended to the criminal law. you could see him writing the opinions and denying folks down there in washington, to stop before they did further damage to the constitution. the other thing that jumps out of these articles, only slightly more sophisticated i think is interesting, is that he really truly was a common-law lawyer. he really passionately believed that the law comes from really examining the facts and then going out there and finding out what the law in its majesty tells us and apply them to the fact. he, in fact, had an extraordinary knowledge of european continental code systems and he understood them, but one thing he didn't want to see in the criminal area was ove

. >>> looking at wednesday we examine another supreme court case mapp v. ohio. american history tv and our original series landmark cases begin every night this week at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >>> sunday night on q & a. >> when you look at the insurrection that people have taken up to the streets in baltimore, ferguson and los angeles, it's always been because of something the police have done. >> georgetown university law school professor paul butler takes a critical look on the criminal justice system and its impact on african-american men in his book "choke hold." >> the number of victims are other black men. if a white person is very concerned about being a victim of crime, the main person she ought to be concerned about is her intimateate partner or her husband. statistically that's the person most likely to cause her harm. >> sunday night eastern on c-span's q and a. >> panelists remember their time working for the first african member of the court and discuss his opinions on landmark cases. this event took place at the u.s. second circuit court of appeals in n

court took on including griffin versus illinois, matt versus ohio, which we told two versus ohio,mapp and gideon vwainwright. the building block for maranda said you have to have a lawyer. versus ohio is the so-called stop and frisk case, allowing officers to stop somebody and frisk them. host: we talked about this controversy. a 5-4 the court was decision. congress also got into the act in past the omnibus safe streets act. >> they were outraged by the miranda decision because criminals were going rate and there was expected to have a dramatic effect on law enforcement. congress passed the law reestablishing the voluntariness test in federal court, because that is all the jurisdiction that congress has. host: 20 minutes left and i want to talk about what has happened to maranda in the years ensuing. what was refined? >> i mean the most important one is -- can we talk about that? this is the dickerson case, and in cassel had a crucial role it, so i will allow him to tee it up. it said the court should reinstate the -- and admit confessions if they were voluntary defined by factors as in the time e

ohio. as you rightfully noted, rosecrans was decisive, s a gr courageous. whatestion happened to chickimaf >> "theeren edge of glory" is v true. here's two things i chi say, ben rosecrans at stones river and it rosecrans at chickamauga. it's a very straightforward battle, a fairly open place. it's broken fields, but you can stand on the noll, and you can see pretty much your entire battle line. he's got a pretty good visual fi sense of what's going on, whereas in chickamauga, it's like fighting in jungle. so rosecrans gets very out of touch with theth situation. you couple that with the fact that the guy has a very exuberant personality. he has a way of giving a lot of orders and being very enthusiastic. he also has a terrible time managing his sleep schedule. he usually averages only about a four or five hours of sleep a 6 night. which, considering the fact than you left nashville on december f 26th is not really that much ofy an effect, particularly we adrenaline has a way of taking over, but by the time he gets te chickamauga, he's been three weeks on campaign and maintaining that schedule. so there's an exhaustion of