so while mapp versus ohio does not enjoy the household recognition of a case like miranda versus arizona, it effected a profound change in criminal proceed pu. tonight dr. carolyn long examines this decision in part of the discussion as her latest book. titled "map versus ohio guarded against unreasonable searches and seizures." dr. long is from the college of liberal arts, director 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 university of oregon and her ph.d in political science from rutgers university. she has been a full bright scholar and is the author of many, numerous in fact, scholarly articles and book chapter. the book she presents tonight is her third. please welcome dr. carolyn long. [ applause ] >> thank you for the kind introduction. before we begin i would like to thank the university press of connecticut and university of kansas school of law, kansas city public library, truman library institute and federal court society and the coughman founda

in these efforts were all cases like miranda versus arizona, gideon versus wainwright and others that capture our attention and sometimes our criticism. miranda vrz arizona bears special mention, because in this particular case, the exclusionary roel rule was extended to involuntary and coerced confessions, and that really put the court in the public's eye. moreover, it's important to note that the criminal due process revolution occurred at the same time the court liberalized rules regarding federal writs of habeas corpus, thereby ensuring a steady stream of appeals from state criminal defendants on federal constitutional grounds. they did so on a case-by-case basis, examining whether someone's due process rights were violated. but with mapp, which opened the incorporation floodgates, the court started to systematically and comprehensively address criminal procedure rights for everyone. so it's this criminal due process revolution that makes mapp v ohio so significant. if you realize that law enforcement's investigatory activities in the prosecution of criminal defendants happens at

guaranteed in the fifth, sixth and eighth amendment and in these efforts are all cases like miranda, versus arizona, gideon versus wane right. miranda versus arizona bears special mention. in this case the exclusionary rule was extended to involuntary and coerced confessions and that really put the court in the public's eye. moreover, it's important to night that the criminal due process revolution occurred at the same time the court liberal lies the rules of habeas corpus. the supreme court this tackled criminal procedural rights before but did so on a case-by-case basis, examining whether someone's due process rights were violated but with mapp which opened the incorporation floodgates the court started to systematically and comprehensively address criminal procedure rights for everyone. it's this criminal due process revolution which makes mapp v. ohio to significant. if you realize that law enforcement's investigatory activities and the prosecution of criminal defense -- defendants happens at the state and local level then you can know that mapp v. ohio might come into play with potentially hun

ernest miranda, petitioner, versus arizona. >> we'll hear arguments in number 18.oe against wade. >> quite often, many of our most famous decisions are ones the court took that were quite unpopular. >> let's go through a few cases that illustrate dramatically and visually what it means to live in a society of 310 million different people who helped stick together because they believe in a rule of law. >>> good evening. welcome to c-span and the national constitution center's "landmark cases" series. tonight, case 11 out of 12. this is a 1966 case, miranda versus arizona, that helped revolutionize policing in america. >> you are under arrest. you have the right to an attorney. you have the right to remain silent. anything you say to us can be used against you in a court of law. >> do you even know the miranda rights? >> yes. >> let's hear them now. >> do we -- you got a lot of stuff to do. >> go ahead. >> are you sure you understand your rights? >> oh, yes. yes. he explained them to me. just like they do on television. >> done nothing wrong. >> right to remain silen

because the name on the case that came down from the united states supreme court in 1966 was miranda versus arizona. they are as fundamental and essential to justice today as almost anything ever created because they are a product of the fifth amendment to the u.s. constitution. that's where they came from, that's why we have them and that's what they stand for today. >> bar and have lived here in mesa arizona, born in mesa arizona, a young man in his mid-20s at the time. he was suspected by the phoenix police department of being involved in the abduction of a robbery and kidnapping of three different women, three different occasions. all of those occasions happened in downtown phoenix. the pickup for lack of a better word was done in downtown phoenix. some of the crimes took place out in the desert at the time it wawas thought to be the desert s now 20th street. it's no longer the desert, it is a major part of central phoenix today but that's how it started. a suspect in the crimes. the police went to his home in mesa arizona, two police officers and they asked him if he would come down to the pol

warnings because the name of the case they came down from the states supreme court in 1966 was miranda versus arizona. they are as fundamental and essential to justice today as almost anything ever created. they are a product of the fifth amendment to the u.s. constitution. that's where they came from, that's why we have been and that's what they stand for today. miranda lived here in mesa, arizona. he was born in mesa, arizona. he was a young man in his mid-20s at the time. he was suspected by the phoenix police department of being involved in the abduction, the robbery, and the kidnapping of three different women on three different occasions. all of those occasions happen in downtown phoenix. the pickup, for lack of a better word, was in downtown phoenix. some of the crimes took place out in the desert. at the time that was thought to be the desert, it's now 20 street and bethany home. it's no longer the desert. it's a major part of central phoenix today. but that's how it started with being a suspect in those crimes. the police went to his home in mesa, arizona, two police officers, and they asked

ernest miranda, petitioner, versus arizona. >> we'll hear arguments in number 18. roe against wade.

in 1966 miranda versus arizona gave rise to the miranda warning now rea

one is miranda versus arizona, then westover versus united states, a federal case. e solicitor general argues -- that is thurgood marshall arguing against the miranda rules in the against those kinds of restraints on police interrogation, because of course a would affect state law enforcement agencies and also fbi and other federal law enforcement agencies would have to come i as well. when a to comply. >> cases go before the court, how does the process work? >> there is a lot of argument that takes place over time. in addition to thurgood marshall there was another distinguished isyer who said -- he arguing for the state of new york and resisting the broad fifth amendment rule in all cases, and urges the court it not be retroactive and not free people already convicted your to you do have, interestingly, two civil libertarian here h -- heroes. >> this came to the court, can with theseolved court cases lasting more than seven hours over three days -- we don't cv's kind of structures very often now. this seems really complicated because of the number of cases and lawy

at 8:00 eastern, miranda versus arizona, the 1966 supreme court decision requiring police to inform criminal suspects of their rights before being questioned. >>> next week at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3, a civil war special featuring american history tv highlights. on monday, we're at the emerging civil war blog symposium, where we look at the great defenses of the civil war, including gettysburg, antietam, and the siege of vicksburg. tuesday we focus on civil war leadership at the longwood university civil war seminar with talks on generals robert e. lee, ulysses s. grant, and confederate colonel john mosby. wednesday through friday, we're at the gettysburg college civil war institute conference. wednesday features lincoln scholar harold holzer. on thursday, speakers include historian john marsalack and on friday we conclude the conference with author t.j. stiles. american history tv's civil war special, all next week beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >>> all persons having business before the honorable the supreme court of the united states are admonished to draw near and give t

warnings because the name of the case they came down from the states supreme court in 1966 was miranda versus arizona

. >> number 759, earnest miranda, petitioner, versus arizona. >> we'll hear arguments in number 18, roe against wade. >> quite often in many of our most famous decisions are ones that the court took the quite unpopular -- >> 5-4, 4-5, these decisions change our lives! >> 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 had helped stick together because they believe in a rule of law. >> good evening, and welcome to c-span's history series "landmark cases." tonight is number 10 in our 12-part series, and you'll hear about the 1962 tennessee reapportionment case. it was one that chief justice earl warren called the most important of his tenure. and remember, this is the court that wrote brown versus board of education. we'll learn why during the next 90 minutes. this case began a reapportionment revolution that changed the way seats are allocated on state legislatures, and ultimately, the congress, and of course, that's all about power. we'll learn more from our two guests, and let me introduc

at 8:00 eastern miranda versus arizona the 1966 supreme court decision requiring police to inform criminal suspects of their rights before being questioned. next week at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 3, a civil war special, featuring american history tv highlights. on monday we're at the emerging civil war blog symposium where we look at the great defenses of the civil war including gettysburg and tee tum and the siege of vicksburg. tuesday we focus on civil war leadership at the longwood university civil war seminar with talks on general robert e. lee, ulysses s. grant and colonel john mosby. wednesday through friday, we're at the gettysburg college civil war institute conference. wednesday featuring lincoln scholar harold holzer, thursday speakers include john marzlack and on friday we conclude the conference with author t.j. stiles. civil war special, all next week, beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. >>> the 1967 supreme court ruling in the case loving versus virginia, struck down laws prohibiting interracial marriage. at the time 16 southern states had laws banning interracial m

at 8:00 eastern miranda versus arizona, a 1966 supreme court decision requiring police to inform criminal suspects of their rights before being questioned. >> next week at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. a civil war special featuring american history tv highlights. on monday, we're at the emerging civil war blog symposium where we look at the great defenses of the civil war including gettysburg, antietam, and the civil war seminar with talks on generals robert e. lee, ulysses s. grant and con federal colonel john mosby. wednesday through friday we're at the gettysburg civil war institute conference. wednesday features lincoln's scholar herald hoser and on friday, we conclude the conference with author t.j. stiles. american history tv's civil war special all next week beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >>> lewis brandeis was the first jewish supreme court justice serving from 1916 to 1939. up next, we'll hear from a professor at american university who also wrote a book titled "lewis d. brandeis: american prophet." [ applause ] >> justice kagan wears many hats this evening. we are ve

miranda versus arizona, the 1966 supreme court decision requiring police to inform criminal suspects of their rights before being questioned. saturday, beginning at 6:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv, robert o'hara talks about the life of civil war quarter master general montgomery c.meigs. reel america shows two films about traffic and road safety. >> we need proper traffic regulations to promote efficient travel and we need one more thing too, we're talking of safe driving. cars and roads have improved. but the driver must improve too. almost as great a challenge to communities as the road itself. just how can communities go about a safety program? >> sunday, starting at 6 p.m., on american artifacts. a behind the scenes tour of this smithsonian castle on the national mall. at 6:45 p.m., the u.s. commission on civil rights marks the anniversary of the americans with disabilities act with a report on its history and the work that remains. american history tv, all weekend, every weekend, only on c-span 3. >> louis brandies was the first jewish supreme court justice serving from

. >> number 759, ernest miranda, petitioner, versus arizona. >> we will hear arguments in number 18,oe against wade. >> quite often in many of our famous decisions are ones that the court took quite an 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 stick together because they believe in a rule of law. >>> good eveni

. ♪ >> number 759, ernest miranda, petitioner, versus arizona. >> we will hear arguments in number 18

ernest miranda, petitioner, versus arizona. in >> we'll hear arguments in number 18. roe against wade. pular. >> quite often, many of our most famous decisions are ones the court took that were quite unpopular.

miranda petitioner versus arizona. >> we'll hear arguments on number 18.oe against wade. >> quite often in many of our famous decisions are ones that the court took that before 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 have sticked together because they believe in a rule of law. >> good evening and welcome to landmark cases. well, we're about 2/3 of the way through the series looking at historic supreme court decisions. tonight the 1954 case of school segregation brown v. board of education. and we're going to begin this evening by listening to linda brown on the roots of this case. >> my memory of brown began in the fall of 1950. in the quiet kansas town of topeka where a mild-mannered black man took his plump 7-year-old daughter by the hand and walked briskly four blocks from their home to the all-white school and tried without success to enroll his child. that, parents in topeka thought trying to enroll the student in the school n

. >> number 759, ernest miranda, petitioner, versus arizona. >> we will hear arguments in number 18,oe against wade. >> quite often in many of our famous decisions are ones that the court took quite an 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 stick together because they believe in a rule of law. >>> good evening and welcome to c-span's "landmark cases" where we've been learning more about historic cases at the supreme court that have affected the court and the country. tonight the 1961 case of mapp v. ohio. it 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 introdu

. >> number 759, earnest miranda, petitioner, versus arizona. >> we will hear argue mblts in number 18, rowe 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 dramatically and visually what it means to live in a society of 310 million different people who helped stick together because they believe in a rule of law. ♪ >> good evening and welcome to "landmark cases," our series that explores the people and stories behind some of the supreme court's most important decisions throughout our history. this week the 1952 steel seizure case. it is officially known as youngstown steel and tube company versus sawyer. to get us started tonight we're going to start with a piece of vintage film. it is from a documentary, and it features president harry truman on april 8th, 1952 as he announces to the nation his seizure of the nation's steel industry. >> with american troops facing the enemy on the field of battle, i would not be living up to my oath of office if i failed to do what

number 759, ernest miranda, petitioner versus arizona. >> number 18, roe v. >> quite often in many of the famous