so in mapp versus ohio, the court does not like the case of miranda versus arizona, it effects a change in procedure. mapp versus ohio regarding against illegal searches and seizures. she is a professor in public affairs and an associate professor at washington state university in vancouver, washington. she earned her bachelor of arts from the university of oregon and her phd from rutgers university. dr. long has also been a fullbright scholar and is the author of many. please become our first speaker, dr. carolyn long. >> thank you for their kind introduction, before i begin i would like to thank the co-sponsors of the event, the university of kansas school of law and the co-presenters of this talk and also the sponsors, the kaufman foundation. tomorrow morning i will be individuals sitting the truman library. and as you know, truman played a big part in mapp versus ohio. an he was also one of truman's first key appointments. shortly after taking office, president truman appointed him to be attorney general and later elevated him to the position of associate justice on the united state

so some argue that i think that they're right that the reason why the court allowed in this taer versus ohio is because of the political bash lash that the court of the getting because of miranda versus arizona and mapp versus ohio. but what's interesting about the stop and frisk as we saw in taer versus ohio is that it is has evolved to something completely different. so noul, even if you are stopped for a traffic offense, you can be stopped and friskd by law enforcement, and that's considered constitutional. and even if you are a passenger in a car that's been stopped by law enforcement, you can be friskd by law enforcement. and so it shows you how much that original ruling has changed throughout the years. and what's interesting is the orange ruling in terry versus ohio was that you stop and frisk someone because of officer safety. it makes complete rational sense. you don't want to stop somebody is have them injury when you're trying to protect public peace. but if somebody is being friskd and they're a passenger in a car, it's a little bit more difficult actually to make that argumentme

. >>> looking ahead to tonight we look into mapp versus ohio. american history tv and our original series landmark cases begins every night this week at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >>> sunday night. >>

while mapp versus ohio does not enjoy the recognition of a case like miranda versus arizona it effected a profound change in criminal procedure. tonight dr. carolyn long examines the procedure in part of her discussion of her latest book titled "mapp versus ohio, guarding against unreasonable searches and seizures." she is the associate director of the college of labiberal 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 of kansas and the university of kansas school of law, and the co-presenters and funders of this talk, the kansas cit

court was concerned about the search being admittedly illegal, but there was an ohio state precedent called state versusynnway which said in the state of ohio illegally seized evidence could still be admitted to criminal trial. which is why in ohio like the other half of the states in the unions that didn't have the exclusionary rule, you would still have police engaging in searches without warrants. >> we have our first caller and appropriately from cleveland. this is shan watching us there. you're on the air. >> caller: yes. thank you so much, c-span, for taking my call. i live very close to the home there, and i was amazed. i've heard of this case before, i mean, but i didn't know it was in cleveland. i thought it was in another city. my question is, how relevant is this case today? is it still being used in court cases? we have a case right now where -- in cleveland going on right now, and it is sort of similar to this. i want to know is it still relevant and being used today. thank you? >> thank you, sir. >> the short answer is yes, it is used all the time in courts routinely. so every time a suppr

mapp versus ohio, which is a mapp story we told two weeks ago in our series. on versus wainwright, '63, which has been referred to by our guests here. escobead cocase -- >> said you had to have a lawyer during investigation. that was the building brock for miranda. >> miranda in '66, terry versus ohio. >> terry versus ohio is the so-called stop and frisk case which legitimizes constitutionally the ability of law enforcement officers to stop someone who's suspected of a crime, if necessary frisk them because they might be carrying a weapon. >> we talked about the big controversy about this decision, and again the court 5-4, they really argued it strongly on both sides as well. you mentioned president nixon campaigned on a law in 1968. congress also got into the act and passed the omni bus control and safe streets act in 1968. >> congress was outraged by the miranda decision because criminals were going free and there was expected to be a very dramatic effect on law enforcement. so in 1968 congress passed a law essentially re-establishing the old voluntariness te

, which we told two versus ohio,mapp and gideon v.ainwright. 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 el

matt versus ohio, which is a story we told two weeks ago. on versus wainwright, the '63 case which has been referred to by our two guests here. esscovido case -- >> said you had to have a lawyer during interrogation. >> terry versus ohio. >> the stop and frisk case which legitimizes the ability to stop someone who's suspected of a crime. and if necessary frisk them because they might be carrying a weapon. >> we talked about the controversy on this decision. the court argued it strongly on both sides. you mentioned president nixon campaigned on the law in the '68 election. congress also got into the act and passed the crime control and states street act. what were they trying to do? congress was outraged by the miranda decision because criminals were going free and there was expected to be a dramatic effect on law enforcement because that's all the jurisdiction that congress has, is to regulate federal procedures. >> we've got 20 minutes left. there have been a number of cases where we've referred to some of them that have begun to refine mira

yes, right, of course, the term before gideon there was mapp versus ohio which applied the fourth amendment exclusionary rule to the states, and miranda, yeah, there were a lot of -- there was a revolution in criminal law. i remember -- i went to harvard law school and graduated in 1961. in those days at harvard -- and it may have been different at other law schools, i hope it was different at other law schools -- criminal law was taught without reference to criminal procedure. my criminal law course was taught by an australian professor who knew absolutely nothing about constitutional law. it was all first degree murder, second degree murder, assault, battery, all of that. the warren court changed that. now criminal law to a significant extent has been constitutionalized. that's a very important part of the prosecution, and i think most people would think that the criminal justice system is fairer as a result of that. >> ms. stewart, you've admitted that you were born after gideon was decided. do you see, looking back as someone who has taught law and has also obviously gone to law school

matt versus ohio, which is a story we told two weeks ago. eon versus wainwright, the '63 case which has been referred to by our two guests here. e esscovido case -- co tobedo have a lawyer during interrogation. >> terry versus ohio. >> thehe stop and frisk case whichp legitimizes the ability to stop someone who's suspected of a crime. and if necessary frisk them because they might be carrying e weapon. >> we talked about theisk them controversy on this decision. the court argued it strongly on both sides. president nixon campaigned on ns the law in the '68 election. congress got into the act and passes the omnibus act in 1968.o >> criminals were going free, and there was expected to be a dramatic effect on law d s enforcement in 1968 congress passed the law re-establishing the old voluntary test. >> we have about 20 minutes left, i wanted to talk about what's happened to miranda in the years ensuing. they've begun to refine miranda what are the important ones to know about, and what was refined. >> the most important one is the one that uphel

tonight, we'll look at mapp versus ohio. found evidence cannot be used in criminal prosecutions if it's 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. >>> all persons having business before the honorable the supreme court of the united states give their attention. >> landmark cases, c-span's special history series produced in cooperation with the national constitution center, exploring the human stories and constitutional dramas behind 12 historic supreme court decisions. >> earnest petitioner versus arizona. >> we hear arguments number 18 roe against wade. >> quite often in many of our most famous decisions are ones that the court took that were quite unpopular. >> let's go through a few cases that illustrate very dramaticall

. >>> looking ahead to tonight we look into mapp versus ohio. american history tv and our original series landmark cases begins every night this week at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >>> sunday night. >> when you look at every major civil interaction that has risen up in the united states when black people have abandoned peaceful protests and taken it to the streets in newark, in fergus ferguson, in los angeles it is always because of something the police have done. >> george down professor paul butler takes a look at the u.s. criminal justice system and the impact on african american men. >> when we look at who ought to be afraid of black men, the number one victim is other black men. the main person she ought to be concerned about is her intimate partner or her husband. statistically that's the person that is most likely to cause her harm. >>> former law clerks to marshal his legacy. panelists including supreme court justice remember their time working for the first african american member of the court and discuss his opinions on landmark cases. this eve

is not protected by the first amendment, it's not mentioned in the bill of rights, brandenburg versus ohio the most important that explain and in very explicitly yes, language or disagree with is first amendment. tell me where this idea comes from, everyone seems to be repeating it. >> patrice colors is a good friend of mine and i definitely understand which she's saying. legally is hate speech protecte protected, absolutely. should it be? that depends on where you fall on the issue. when you're talking about white nationalism and white supremacist, there is a lot of hate speech from that side and she's absolutely right. when we talk about issues around black lives and issues around equality, there isn't the hit that is coming from the other side, let me put it to you that way. >> tucker: it all depends on what you think is hateful. >> let's be really clear, when you have the kkk and white folks talking about death of black people, death of african-americans, calling people the n-word, that's hateful. it's a perfect example of hate speech. >> tucker: let me ask you aa question. this isd th

this was decided in brandenburg versus ohio, 1969. >> that's right.ghtske violence isn't protected. >> tucker: that's not true. imminent violence. >> that's right, imminent violence -- >> tucker: i can say, i think we ought to overthrow the government by force. if ice say, burn 7-eleven right now, that is not afraid >> that's exactly right. >> tucker: that has been the distinction for my entire life. what has changed is not the law, what has changed is that the aclu has caved to mob pressure. speaker you are right that the law has not changed. you are wrong that they hate groups have not changed. in fact, the culture that we live in right now, it has changed significantly with respect to white supremacist hate groups. they are now more violent than ever. they are growing at a rate that is bigger than ever. we have a president that has done things that have emboldened these groups. there actually is more of a threat of eminent violence than there ever has been before. i think if you ask anyone in law enforcement, they would tell you that there is a gre

in 1969 the supreme court ruled in brandenburg versus ohio that you couldn't criminalize speech. it was an interesting decision where they actually struck down the ohio language which was incredibly broad but in striking it down they endorsed the idea that you can have violent speech for many of us we have a hard time accepting the concept of speech as violence in what you see in this tragic case is how words can actually be treated like a murder weapon and what that implies for us as a country what you had in this case which i think is abundantly obvious was in my view a crime of murder. you had two teenagers both of them had emotional difficulty both of whom had diagnose problems that they were struggling with. 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 is a qualifier in the eye can see enough of the audience that i can ask the question. so you think that there is no amount or quality or lack of quality are words spoken as words whether orly or in writing or through an e-mail t

. >>> coming up -- >> we are back on the record for the jury trial of the state of ohio versus david-- >> the verdict for david bell. >> is that what you were expecting? >> no, it's not what i was expecting. >>> i love cincinnati, but at the end of the day from what i'm seeing, this city might as well be called snitch-innati. because that's basically what's going on, a whole lot of snitching. >> david bell has been at the hamilton county justice center in cincinnati, ohio, for the past three years awaiting trial for charges including aggravated murder, attempted murder and aggravated robbery. to his dismay, annishia smith who allegedly was with him during the crimes recently decided to testify against him in the case. >> i should have never covered for him in the first place. >> she a snitch. she a snitch and i hate that about her. >> now it appears her testimony along with other evidence against him, like his dna on the murder weapon, had an impact. >> the jury came back with a verdict of guilty on all the counts, all the charges. >> is that what you were expecting? >> no, it's not

. >> record case 232189, state of ohio versus keenan. >>> overlooking lake erie in downtown cleveland, the cuyahoga county corrections center is an imposing 11-story structure built to house 2,100 men and women. on most days that number is exceeded by 100 or more. while some have been convicted, most are only charged with crimes and are awaiting trial of the resolution of their cases. >> our current population changes daily. we book in 115 people a day, we release hopefully 115 or more. we have an average length of stay of about 45 days involving 30,000 bookings a year. there is uncertainty with everyone. the inmate is in custody and he doesn't or she doesn't know what's happening to them tomorrow. >> you ever tried to kill yourself? >> no. >> are you suicidal? >> no. >> physically or sexually assaulted? >> physically, like beat up? >> no, shot, stabbed, set on fire on purpose. >> no. >> i think there is high anxiety in the jail environment that you wouldn't necessarily see in prison. >> and anxiety is often highest in a place where every new inmate's journey begins. >> open your eyes

. >>> tonight we'll look at mapp versus ohio. the supreme court found evidence cannot be used in criminal prosecutions if it's found in violation of the fourth amendment on search and seizure. that's tonight on c-span3 at 3:00 p.m. eastern. >>> landmark cases returns live next february on c-span. join us to hear more stories on people who sparked groundbreaking cases and justices and lawyers who were key to the supreme court review. >>> all persons having business before the honorable, the supreme court of the united states, fiv an ear the their attention. >> landmark cases, c-span special series in cooperation with the center. exploring human stories behind 12 supreme court decisions. >> number 759, petitioner versus arizona. >> we hear arguments number 18, roe against wade. >> many times the courts took the ones that were quite unpopular. >> let's go through a few cases that illustrate very dramatically and visually what it means to live in a society of 310 million different people who helped stick together because they believe

this chief justice wrote terry versus ohio, which is one of the most pro law enforcement decisions evertten by says that the cops are allowed to stop you and pat you down on reasonable suspicion without a warrant. but what warren did care a lot about was human dignity. he uses that phrase in the decision. he was troubled when he wrote the spano case, that the guy who was involved in a barroom brawl there and ended up killing someone may have been acting in self-defense but according to the state rules at the time was liable for a big prison sentence. he is a kind of pragmatic judge and didn't think the totality of the circumstances test was protective enough at a time when he was really troubled by police violence. he understood the third degree, as we heard on the clip. he understood what was going on in the south. so far from being kind of an aclu guy who just wants to stop the cops all interrogations by requiring a lawyer at all times, i think he's trying to come up with a moderate, pragmatic compromise that will restrain the police at a time when he thinks that's necessary. >> braxt

how do you see those races, and have you seen a division at all between races in pennsylvania and ohio versus ones in indiana and missouri to more other conservative states? j.b.: i go in assuming all the races are going to be challenging. i wouldn't take virginia for granted and that this is a midterm election and turnout will be different. so i expect competitive, -- competitive elections. that said, you pointed to three particularly well-liked and successful senators in casey and brown and tim kaine. what i believe about brown in ohio, which is a challenging state where our presidential candidate fell 8 points short. he has won here before twice and i think he is smart about standing up for workers' rights and standing up for an economy that makes sense in ohio. i like our chances there. i do not suspect we will see much of a difference in the election that we had six years ago in ohio with the same candidates, the same flawed candidate on the republican side. i expect he will come out of that one. sean: which of the races keep you up most at night? which races to you worry about the most?

tonight, we'll look at mapp versus ohio. found evidence cannot be used in criminal prosecutions if it's 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. >>> all persons having business before the honorable the

this is the state of ohio versus felicia smith. >> if convicted, smith could face up to two years inather than go to trial, she's decided to enter a guilty plea to aggravated assault and domestic violence in exchange for what she hopes will be probation and her freedom. >> and you understand that by changing your plea here in the manner as indicated by the prosecutor, you would then be admitting the truth of the charges to which you are pleading. you would be waiving your right to go to trial and the court could proceed immediately to sentence you on these charges? >> yes. >> all right with that understanding how do you plead? >> guilty, your honor honor. >> is that made knowingly and voluntarily and of your own free will? >> yes. >> after several minutes to make sure she understands all of the implications, the judge accepts her guilty plea, but decides to hold off sentencing for another month while the probation department reviews her case. her attorney would still like to secure her release before then. >> currently felicia is in jail on a $25,000 bond, your honor. we're wondering

versus a. philip andolph institute, an ohio voting rights case scheduled to be argued before the supreme upcoming ng the october term. section 8 of the nvra, national registration act, prescribes rules for when state voter registration programs may remove voters from voter rules and prohibits the removal of an a gible voter because of person's failure to vote. since 1994, the department has nvra prohibited states from using a voter's ailure to vote for a specified period as grounds to send an address verification notice. programs like ohio's, if the voter failed to respond to the notice and failed to vote period of tional time, the voter would be removed from the voter roll. facts or case law have changed, the department has citingersed its position the change in administrations as the only basis for doing so. opens the door to more aggressive and inaccurate urging of voter rolls, which can lead to widespread voter disenfranchisement and uppression of low-income communities and communities of color. in september 2016, a federal blocked the ohio 8.ogram for violating section a federal judge allowe

. >> hall of fame game from canton ohio marks the start of the nfl preseason. arizona cardinals versusallas cowboys. not a lot of starters saw action. cowboys only played five of their potential opening day starters. cowboys won 20 to 18. >> nfl hall of fame is in canton it's pretty fun actually. i'm from ohio. i've been there. >>> coming up on fox5 morning increased security concerns after a new survey finds one-fifth of travelers carry prohibited items on to planes. >> steph curry looks the part. let's show it. during his first pro golfing tournament. a teaser, into pics. that's just so wrong on this friday. >> i know but imagine, if you will. >>> as we head to break we can give you this live picture of mgm all lit up. 75 trees already on this friday. we got -- 75 degrees already on this friday. don't go anywhere. you're watching fox5 news morning. >> ♪ >> ♪♪ >> ♪ >> good morning to you. welcome to fox5 news morning if you're just waking up here, it's 5:13 and these are some of the top stories for today, friday, august 4th. today attorney general jeff sessions will announce a crackdo

ohio blessing. the cowboys versus the cardinals. at the completely refurbished stadium. dallas wins at 2018.t off. no scars. the miami dolphins are in need of a quarterback. ryan chan help facing season ending knee surgery. the decision has to be made whether to wait it out six to eight weeks or opt for knee surgery which would end his season. espn has reported that the front office has already have discussions about trying to hire him. member he opted out of the 40 niners contract. the undefeated undefeated asked this question yesterday on twitter. if he doesn't get signed by the beginning of the season. how seriously would you consider boycotting the nfl. outraged fans. one like this responded by asserting the issue into the game he has driven a wedge that they may not overcome. why should he be rewarded. tom brady walked onto the practice field yesterday. they have a bunch of baby goats in foxboro. why baby goats. the greatest of all time. i was watching this happen live. i was actually thinking what's with the goats. i could not put it together until i realize realized and sought the sto

. >> when clinton had trouble leading in polls in ohio, that should have been a sign that there's something different about her coalition versuslition. >> clinton was counting on a surge in women and miami at the polls. but only one shirt remained. >> it ugsd to sed to be working people voted democrat, and the better off voted republican. >> trump's margin of candidate without a college degree was the first in years. perhaps the key reason why many believed trump couldn't win? nobody who even remotely liked donald trump had ever run for president, much less won. >> we need brains in this country to turn it around. >> he seemed impervious to other voters. >> he would go up and down the ethnic groups and insult every one of them. >> i said, that's revolting. >> if you look at his wife, maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say, you tell me. >> and you're like, what kind of politician does that? >> i think it was partly because the media and the political class were so appalled, it seemed to almost be satisfying. look, he did it again, they're freaking out. and then a video that some called the mother of all october surpri

. >> when clinton had trouble leading in polls in ohio, that should have been a sign that there's something different about her coalition versuston was counting on a surge of women and minorities at the polls. but the only surge in the midwest was among white voters without college degrees. >> whoo! >> it used to be that college-educated white people voted republican and working-class white people voted democratic. >> so the social class profile of the two parties has flipped. >> it's completely flipped. yeah. >> we won with poorly educated. i love the poorly educated. >> trump's margin among whites without a college degree was the largest of any candidate in 36 years. >> in the center of the stage tonight, businessman donald trump. >> but perhaps the key reason why many believed trump couldn't win? no one even remotely like donald trump had ever run for president much less won. >> and we need brain in this country to turn it around. >> he seemed impervious to negative stories. >> i could stand in the middle of 5th avenue and shoot somebody and i wouldn't lose any voters. okay? it's like incredible. >> he would go down a list

. >> when clinton had trouble leading in polls in ohio, that should have been a sign that there's something different about her coalition versuson was counting on a surge of women and minorities at the polls. but the only surge in the midwest was among white voters without college degrees. >> it used to be that college-educated white people voted republican and working-class white people voted democratic. >> so the social class profile of the two parties has flipped. >> it's completely flipped. yeah. >> we won with poorly educated. i love the poorly educated. >> trump's margin among whites without a college degree was the largest of any candidate in 36 years. >> in the center of the stage tonight, businessman donald trump. >> but perhaps the key reason why many believed trump couldn't win? no one even remotely like donald trump had ever run for president much less won. >> and we need brain in this country to turn it around. >> he seemed impervious to negative stories. >> i could stand in the middle of 5th avenue and shoot somebody and i wouldn't lose any voters. okay? it's like incredible. >> he would go down a list of america

ohio and industrial michigan or early illinois. i think the real divide is in the search data reveals is outdoors versus south, east versus west. >> we see that it's much much higher east of the mississippi river and it drops pretty substantially west of the mississippi river. so once i have this math i went to see because people are so honest here, could you use this data to measure how much obama really one in the 2008 election and course you can't just compare races searches to vote for obama because it might be that places that have high recent searches don't have any democrat candidate in 2008, that's not a fair comparison but what i gaze i compared obama's vote total to the previous democratic candidates, such as john kerry in the previous election. it was a white candidate and ranked liberal. and what you see when you do that and you can read the paper, read it in the book is a very strong significant relationship that places that had highest rate of search volume with these places, or places in industrial michigan, was much less than previous candidates. and even start controlling for anything like education for democratic