this leads us to mapp v ohio. after losing in state court, she knew she only had one option left, the supreme court. when her petition for review arrived at the court it emphasized the obscenity statute in the state. her attorney suggested the law was overly broad, unconstitutional. in eight of the nine justices on the court decided to hear the case. in legal briefs and oral arguments, the focus was almost exclusively on the constitutionality of the obscenity 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. other than that, it was really a first amendment case. so what happened at the conference? well, justice thomas clark's private papers reveal that the mapp -- the discussion focused almost exclusively on the first amendment issue and they said it was unconstitutional under a federal precedent. the question as to whether or not the exclusionary rule should be extended to the states was raise

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 p

mapp v. ohio the focus was almost exclusively on the constitutionality of that object senty statute in the state of ohio. there was brief mention in a brief by the american civil lib union but other than is that it was really a first amendment case. so what happened at the conference? well, justice thomas clark's private papers reveals that the mapp's -- the conference discussion over 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 landmar

tonight on mapp v ohio. thank you to you for your questions and comments, it makes the program interesting. thanks for being with us. >>> "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. >>> american history tv in prime time continues tonight on c-span 3 with our original series "landmark cases." at 8:00 p.m. eastern we will look at baker versus carr. in the 1962 case, the supreme court ruled that federal courts have the authority to intervene in cases about redistricting. the defendants in the case had argued that drawing legislative districts is a political question, not a judicial one. but the justices ruled courts have a role in deciding the fairness of electoral maps. "landmark cases" on baker versus carr, tonight on c-span 3, 8:00 p.m. eastern. >>> next week at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 3, a civil war special featuring american history tv highligh

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 unconsti

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, roe versus wade. >> quite often in many of our famous decisions, ones that the court took quite an unpopular. >> let's go to a few cases that illustrate very dramatically and visually what it means to live in a society of 310 million different people who must stick together because they believe in a rule

. >> yes, who wrote mapp. >> we are going to hear next from dollree mapp's attorney.efore we do, how did she have enough money to pursue this? this is not an inexpensive thing to take these cases through the legal system. >> she didn't. she had an unnamed benefactor from the beginning. it cost about $8,000 to go to the supreme court. she had someone that sent her money which helped her in her legal defense. tried get a name out of her but was unable to do so. >> this is the first case in our "landmark cases" where we can hear the auld yo of the actual oral arguments before the supreme court because the supreme court began a taping system which it maintains to this day to tape all of their oral arguments. here is mr. kearns making his argument to the supreme court in 1961. >> here is a woman who was lawfully in her own home. she's not exhibiting anything like this. she's not trying to sell it. she's not doing anything. assuming that they did find it in her home, the sentence imposed upon her is one to seven years! for exercising, let us say, her right to look at a book

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

. >>> 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. >>

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,

decisions in griffin holding that there was a right to a free transcript if you were indigent and mapp versus ohio applying the fourth amendment exclusionary rule to the states, all of these cases, this jurisprudence really made betz very much of an anomaly and i think the court was clearly intend on overruling it. i recall as a law clerk that we were instructed to find a case that raised the betz versus brady issues and to call it to the court's attention because it was the job of the chief's law clerks at that time to summarize the cases because chief justice martin didn't believe in xerox machines so there was only one copy of the petition, it wasn't copied for the other justices and we wrote memos for the justices, there were eight carbons, the last carbon was illegible, but that was what we were told to do at the time and i think the result was what it was. interestingly, the companion case of douglas had a much more controversial history. maybe we can get into that a bit later. >> yes, i'd like to do that. now, judge boasberg and ms. stewart, you prosecuted cases in both the supr

next, a look at mapp v. ohio. the

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

benchmark was try to re-introduce when it mapp. she's their preferred candidate.hen it mapp stood by her earlier statement saying she won't be ceo like i said this is uber but they haven't changed their stance that whitman is in the running. the two other remaining candidates are expected to be at this board meeting this company worth nearly $70 billion has been without a ceo for more than two months while the board may be getting closer to selecting a new one, it's unlikely at this point everyone will be happy with whoever it is. >> highly watched. thank you very much. >>> when we come back gamestop shares fall as company's earns miss we'll talk to the ceo exclusively. >>> dow is up by more than 100 points now half of that as we're seeing gas prices ease just a touch and ten arye yield awfully close to testing its lows for the year. back in a minute fidelity, where smarter investors will always be. >> gamestop reporting earnings yesterday beating on revenue but falling slightly short on earnings the stock is down double digits today right now about 13%. for more

mapp versus ohio, which is a mapp story we told two weeks ago in our series.eon 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 t

. >>> 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

mapp v. ohio. escobe escobedo v. illinois. and miranda v. arizona in 1966. and then terry v.o. >> 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 wa

of course the term before there was mapp versus ohio. 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 that. and the warren court changed that. now criminal law to a significant extent has been constitutionalized. that's a very important part of the prosecution. most people would think the criminal justice system is fairer as a result of that. >> 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 and practiced law, do you see the warren court as being a path breaker? >> absolutely. i also know that it was certainly an expansion of rights

. >>> 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

in court took on including griffin versus illinois, matt versus ohio, which we told two versus ohio,mappnd gideon v. wainwright. 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

. >> they interalktcted in a mapp they should not have. >> reporter: in michigan, children were poised by a fume and one died. here, the parents including the mother of aden >> it's scary. >> crews will inspect the pool before it's allowed to reopen but there's no timetable on when that will happen. as for the cause of the leak, that's still under investigation. margaret? >> omar, thank you. >>> baltimore's police commissioner says there's no doubt that drugged were recovered in two cases involved alleged police misconduct. two separate body camera videos showing baltimore officers reportedly faking evidence, one from a car in november the other from a backyard in january. defense attorneys in both cases say the footage shows the officers planting drugs. jeff pegues is in baltimore with the investigation and the fallout for police. jeff, good morning. >> reporter: good morning. already prosecutors in this city have had to drop dozens of criminal cases since the body camera video surfaced. the baltimore police is once again defending etc. against allegations of misconduct. >> we're stil

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

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.

this there is a criminal procedure revolution in the warren court.broa the warren court issues the mapp decision in 1961 applying the ha exclusionary rule. 1963 it says you have to have ao lawyer present during police interrogation. conf in the gideon case, says that you have to have a l court-appointed lawyer. basically the supreme court led by earl warren is using the constitution, the fourth and poe fifth amendments, to address what it sees as a problem with t police brutality in the south.i that's the background against which the case was decided. ionn >> we'll spend more time on the warren court and the makeup.ave let's tell ernesto miranda's , s story. who is he? >> you have to also look at miranda but as well at his victim. at we can talk about her shortly. miranda was a repeat criminal, . somebody who had been arrested, convicted, sentenced a number of times, a drifter who really umb didn't have established lly employment or any place to work. then, on the night in question, he at knifepoint abducted a young woman and raped her. that's the backdrop that's here. jeff is talking a

. >>> 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 intimate 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 new

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