She also learned the law. She learned to use the law library, and she tried to be her own person in prison, and theres this wonderful anecdote which i think Ken Armstrong captured for the marshall report that said she wouldnt eat in the cafeteria. She wanted her food to be brought to her because she thought eating in the cafeteria were like pigs in a trough so she demanded her food be brought to her and she had a very specific diet because again, she very much wanted to be her own person. She had aer is the tud about her. That is how she left prison. She returned to queens and she was involved in an Organization Called the volunteer Attorney Service team where they provided legal advice to inmates. She had a number of business ventures, real estate. She was a seamstress so she was engaged a little bit in that trade and she was always looking for ways to improve herself. She left prison the same way she entered prison and the same way she acted the way, as you see in the clip, i live my life as i see fit. She got involved in legal advocacy, but did she make her public career off of the decision . Did she go out speaking about it and participate and really become a spokesperson for her case. She did it a little bit and earlier on she did later in herr life when i met her in 2004 and 2005. She was invited to law school because she had a fantastic story to tell. Most of her work was behind the scenes and she knew that she was associated with the case and people wanted to speak to her including me because of her association with the case and it was hard for me to get to her and in fact, when i reached out to her id written her several letters and she invited me to her home. I was 30 minutes late to her house and she invited me to her porch. She was spitting nails and she was so upset and she didnt want to talk to me, and i had to cajole her to talk about the case. We wanted to get the story out to this new generation and finally she relented and i think she felt sorry for me and let me speak to her and i had several interviews with her later. In the final half hour well talk about the legacy of this decision on policing locally, but also on federal law and subsequent cases. A couple of more calls. Lets talk to bruce in arlington, texas. Youre on the air. Hi. Thanks for having me on. The map versus ohio established in a hearing right to privacy, but some legal scholars disagree with that right and you cant have the freedom of speech. I want to know what the line of reasoning pursued by others to refute that idea. Thanks. Thank you. I think its always a misnomer about the right to privacy in the Fourth Amendment because there is no specific substantive right to privacy articulated in the Fourth Amendment. You have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and thats not the same thing as saying you have the right to privacy. Its important to differentiate the two and the court has come to this right to privacy rather slowly. There is a case called grizol versus connecticut out of the first, the third and the ninth amendments to the constitution and then in roe v. Wade you had the privacy right articulated more clearly in the due process caused in the 14th amendment and thats where you see the court returning for this generalized right to privacy and in fact the liberty component rather than the Fourth Amendment. The only slight modification i would make of that is that the court has recognized particularly, that there is a core concern. Especially in your home. Yes. Robert is in new york city. Hi, robert. Hello. Hi. Ive been on hold and you covered the issue they wanted to ask about and inquire further about to distinguish that in the case it was the American Civil Liberties and particularly Bernie Berman on the Fourth Amendment issue and he confined himself to the First Amendment issue for the alleged pornography. If people want to comment further. Bergman was jack day, his partner, they were looking for this case for a very long while and they knew that wolf could be overruled and they found and it was bergman who did all of the work on the Fourth Amendment issue and that was my comment and the commentators want to add to that, im sure they can. As i mentioned earlier. It was a group of three attorneys from the ohio Civil Liberties union that did the work on the amicus brief on this case and it is true that bergman wanted the Fourth Amendment issue to be argued and there is this paragraph where hes asking them to overturn the brief and it was one paragraph out of 20 pages of the amicus brief. Youre right. He wanted it to be longer and hed argued with his colleagues about having that be the focus of the brief and they of theed to tease out this be on 16ity issue and that dominated it and the first thing he said was we want to overturn wolf v. Colorado and he wanted to save kerns because kerns was floundering so much on this issue and this is implicit in your statement and hes the one who asked to have time before oral arguments that a member who had written an amicus brief would actually do the argument and he contact the the Supreme Court and he said i want to present argument and it was important for that reason, as well. Larry is in naples, florida. I want to hear about the weeks decision which the police can do no wrong, and i think the Supreme Court starting with weeks going all of the way up to map was the start of traditional activism. Id like for you to address that and it led us to the 14th amendment. Is that not correct . Was this the start of jude earn activism . It was argued in some of the first landmark cases. I think that the court was certainly a more activist court than previous courts had been in the liberal direction, and so i think the warren court was definitely seen as starting the criminal procedure revolution and created a number of cases that expanded the rights of criminal defendants. It is not fair to say that all of the decisions expanded that rights. I think there were a number of very significant decisions out of that court that significantly curtailed the rights of defendants in ways that have repercussions to this day and much of the unwinding of Civil Liberties that we see in future courts and the courts beyond that. They find their footing in language from the warren court. Senator Patrick Leahy is the senior democrat and the Senate Judiciary committee. We spoke to him and other members of both democrats and republicans in preparation for this series and i want to show you a clip on the impact of map on searches today. In the long run thats going to hurt us. Thats not going to make us safer. And we go back to this. If you have papers in your desk at home. You fully expect that if the police want to come into your home and look at those papers theyll have to get a warrant and to come in and look at them. If youre holding the same files in the cloud. Youve got it somewhere in the internet or you communicate like that. Shouldnt you have to follow the same rules. It is your privacy were talking about. If you collect everything in many ways you have nothing and learn to do a better analysis of it. At 9 11 we had very few people looking at this material who could speak the languages of those who are in the wiretaps. It doesnt make us less safe to follow the rules of law. Senator leahy in the broad scope of how important warrants are to our civil society. Comments on that . I think theyre extremely important, and i think the more we sort of set up liberty and safety as oppositional ideas, the more distracted we get from the real issue. There is not inconsistency between liberty and safety and theres no reason for us to believe that we cannot have forces and Law Enforcement with limited powers, limited constitutional powers that keep us safe. Carol was talking about it earlier about the statistical studies and what they have shown with regard to the cost of the exclusionary rule and they are not as significant as they are made out to be. They are not significant numbers of lost prosecutions or lost convicts as playing by the rules. The Court Continues to take up these cases about the rights of the accused and warrants. Stafford versus redding. Dog sniffing at a home. Maryland versus king also 2013, collection of dna at a lawful arrest. City of los angeles versus patel and the largest search of hotel registries. As two guests suggested there have been limitations placed on the mapped decision over time. Next up, well listen to three Supreme Court justices, two current, one former and their thoughts on this issue. We will begin with former justice, but sitting at the time suitor and sotomayor with the good faith exception. Lets listen. If the mistake which leads us to conclude that there has been a Fourth Amendment violation was a mistake not made by the police, but made by the judge or magistrate that issued the warrant, that should not preclude the introduction of evidence on the theory described in that v. Ohio. If the miss tack was ntake, and keeping the evidence out. You dont want the police violating your Constitutional Rights rights without a good faith basis and without probable cause and thats why you have a judge make that determination. Thats why you require them to go to a judge. So i had to make the blepolice responsible and they said to the judge i dont think even if they thought they knew that isnt what commands the warrant. Its the judges review. So interesting that these were coming up as questions at the Supreme Court level and perhaps more likely at an appellate federal level. Your thoughts on that . Right. The good faith exception. The good thing to remember about 2 it was intended to help the police use warrants and that was the point of the good faith exception. The officers in leon which is the case that created the exception had what they thought was a good warrant. It turned out not to be a good warrant and so the court in encouraging them to rely on warrants in the first instance said look, if you rely on good faith upon a search warrant that you think is a good warrant were not going to penalize you for that by excluding the evidence, but since leon, the exception has been expanded out and out and out to include cases that dont rely on warrants at all. If the police rely on the database, if theyre relying upon a database that they arent properly maintaining, the good faith exception will apply. So it has ballooned out beyond what i think for its original boundaries. Think its important to note why this has happened. If you look at the decision in 1914 with the exclusion rule with the federal government and then the mapped decision and they rely on a Different Foundation than these subsequent cases and the reason for it according to the clerks it was part of the Fourth Amendment without this ancillary rule which says if you obtain a legal evidence you should be excluded and what rene referred to earlier was this rationale about Judicial Integrity and the court saying one of the reasons we dont allow legal evidence is we dont want to be a party to allowing evidence, we are a court of law and we comply with the constitution. You only exclude evidence in places where they deter Police Misconduct and the argument is that youre not going deter a Police Misconduct. So when you take away the reasoning and you bring it about this idea of deterrence and the utilitarian cost benefit analysis, youve completely eviscerated the Foundation Upon which the exclusionary rule relies and its led to other exceptions and an overall dismantling of the Fourth Amendment and people need to understand how it affects jurisprudence and some of the dangers that we incur when the court sort of changes its mind about how it decides cases. Strict constructionists have always had a problem with this decision, and he hoped to overturn that. We have a clip from the sitting Justice John Roberts where he talks about his views of the map decision. Our cases have applied what is known as the exclusionary rule under which illegally seized evidence cannot be admitted in court. This is a judicially created rule and it is not an individual right and instead aims to deter violations of the Fourth Amendment. Theed where is if the police cannot use evidence from an illegal search there are likely to be fewer illegal searches. Given that purpose our precedence establish that the rules do not apply when it does not result in real deterrence or when the benefits of real deterrence are not outweighed by the cost. It is the prospect that the guilty and possibly dangerous will go free. Your comment, please . Well, i completely disagree with him, obviously. You hear in his comment this embracing of the rationale and the idea that the rule is judicially created, but as neil camis ar said which is a scholar said give me a rule that isnt judicially created. All of the rules are judicially created. What roberts misses is between weeks and map how this is constitutionally required and tom clarke had this great quote once where he was criticizing wolf v. Colorado and he said the case was like an empty gesture. Chief Justice Hughes used to say it was no use at all to have the constitution and its pretty and its got fringes around it, but it is just a piece of paper unless you live by it and you enforce and thats what map in the Fourth Amendment was all about. It was in order to realize the promise of the Fourth Amendment and if you dont have it, you have people filing a civil suit against the police and theyre inevitably going to lose and having the Police Police themselves which may or may not work and weve seen evidence to the latter or having prosecutors go after police that misbehaved which happened very often. And you cant have the promise of the Fourth Amendment without the rule and during the burr quist court and the rehnquist rules with the Fourth Amendment, hes wrong in terms of how it came about and how it was originally described. We have 12 minutes left and i want to use that to take a few more calls and also talk about the impact of the map on policing in america. I want to start with that by listening to chief Justice Earl Warren shortly before he retired from the court. This was the first in a series of cases that the court took on that had to do with criminal rights and overall was seen as making many changes to police procedures, criminal rights and prosecution in the country. Youll hear earl warren talk about that and you will hear from retired Cleveland PoliceSergeant Robert cermack at what he saw at his level. Thii think the work of the police has improved in the last few years. Its higher now than when i first went into the Law Enforcement business almost 50 years 50 years ago, and i am very hopeful that it will continue to improve through the years. I was privileged to be able to teach at the Police Academy here in cleveland and at tric and part of what i taught was search and seizure, and you always had to go back to map and that was the bottom line, that was the foundation of where we had to go from this point forward, and it was very important that the reasoning behind the map decision was conveyed to the new officers so that they would understand how important it was to follow these rules. I think as a result of the map case its really forced Police Officers to work a little harder, to be a little bit more conscientious and in the long run, whether we like the decision or didnt like the decision, it really made us better cops. When we went to court with that information. When we went to court with the evidence obtained with that search warrant we were much more likely to get convictions. So rene hutchins, this is your area of expertise. Did it make the police work harder and be more constructive when they went to court. So i think what we found is there was increased professionalism of the Police Forces. Definitely to the extent that the Police Forces were bound by the rule, they did have to up their game. They did have to become more professionalized and the one comment i did want to make were the rights protected by the Fourth Amendment were not criminal rights and the expansions seen under the warren court were not expansions under criminal expansions. There are limits and we cant confuse the message with the messenger. And so the message is a fabulous message and its about limitations on arbitrary Police Authority which affectious and me as much as it affects the guy at the corner with the heroin pocket and he just happens to be the messenger, and we cant dislike him and therefore dislike the rights that hes protecting for all of us. Comments . I completely agree. These are rights that everybody has and we forget about that because we focus on the criminal and the critics of the rule do so, as scombel that gives them ammunition, and when it was first handed down there was a tremendous outcry by Law Enforcement and what we found was that they learned to train themselves and it did increase the professionalism and there was a stud ny in 1988 by the American Bar Association and these were Police Officers, judges, prosecutors that the exclusionary didnt hurt, and didnt lead to an increase in crime and it wasnt an obstacle to Law Enforcement. Most Law Enforcement officers, they dont maybe embrace the exclusionary rule, but they know how to operate within the bounds of it and they know how to operate within the bounds of these limitations of the exclusionary rule so they can learn to operate around it. One thing i have to add about the earl warren quote. Hes right about Police Professionalism and what he said, is you have to look at these decisions including miranda which well speak about later and look at issues of race and inequality in communities which were targeted by the police because they were predom minute minutely predominantly communities of color and what was happening in communities and race. And brings us to Police Tactics in this country and these are fresh issues in that regard. Wild and wonderful is on twitter and asks which of the exceptions to the exclusionary rule are most commonly used, inevitable discovery, independent source . Thats tough to answer. It is probably attenuation, and there are three exceptions to the exclusionary rule in addition to good faith. If the police can prove that the bad act, the illegal and unconstitutional act is so far removed from the discovery of the evidence, thats considered attenuation and that will be an exception to the exclusionary rule. Inevitable discovery requires quite a bit more in order to establish it, so the police really have to be able to show that they would have almost certainly discovered the illegally gotten evidence anyway, and so it is a bit more difficult for them to demonstrate an inevitable discussion. An independent source, sure, we busted down the door of this persons house and got the evidence, but we had an anonymous tip that we would have been able to get to this evidence in another way, that is another way for them to get to it. Its difficult to say which they used more frequently and i would say inevitable discovery is probably the toughest. He asks why did the dissenters in matt v. Ohio concur on the judgment on First Amendment grounds. Stewarts memorandum did that. Why didnt they concur . Thats a great question. I know i didnt explore that in my book. There was not a First Amendment basis for the majority decision and it was want about the First Amendment. I thought he was asking why didnt they join the concurring opinion. Think he was asking about the dissenters . Why didnt the dissenters find Common Ground because he didnt write a concurrence. He wrote a memorandum and he wasnt concurring on any aspect of the opinion. There was another reason to get there. It was just a memo. We actually dont see it very often so that might be part of the confusion. Yeah. Lets take a call from paul in fort lauderdale. Good evening. Its a mresh apleasure liste all of you, and ive seen a few of the programs, and i think the Supreme Court should be carefully protected and the matt case and many others how they have the same and subsequent courts. Some decisions of the country and how do you see this point . I completely agree with you just in terms of raw numbers and its important to see how the different courts have led to different outcomes. Twothirds of the decisions were what we call prodefendant. They favored the person bringing the challenge and they may be considered liberal. Then of the 200 search and seizure cases that were decided during the tenure of berger and also rehnquist, about 75 of them favored the state. So you will see a real reversal in terms of the win loss rate on personal individuals and we are seeing this trend continue less so under the roberts court. I completely agree with you. We have three more cases. If you joined us along the way we did produce a brief book thats available to you that outlines all of the cases and its brought to you by veteran Supreme Court journalist tony morrow and its 8. 95 and well get it out to you quickly. This series is likely to reair in its entirety and you can watch it on television in the weeks ahead and have the book ready for you and it is archived and there is an opportunity to watch it online. If that book is of interest to you its easily available to you and well get it to you quickly. Just a couple of questions and ill take two more calls and that will be it. Next is pete in fortson, georgia. Hi, pete. Hello. Hi. Thank you for this program. I really enjoy it. I try to catch it whenever i see it. My question was about what we can expect in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. There were comments about how the exclusionary rule is being now considered judge made rule and there are a lot of exceptions to it and what do you think about the warren preference in the Fourth Amendment . Is that also going to be under attack Going Forward and because, think, theres that tension in the Fourth Amendment between the preference for the warren or a requirement. Thanks very much. Thats a great question. If you look at the history of Fourth Amendment cases and the exclusionary rule and you were referred to the construction of the Fourth Amendment and what that construction means is the idea that searches that are accompanied by a warrant are considered unreasonable with a few exceptions and they were carefully delineated and hot purr suiteds and things like that. What weve seen since the berger court was the court embracing this generalized reasonableness construction of the Fourth Amendment which was not focusing on the warrant and focusing on whether or not the officers actions are considered reasonable and theyve done more damage in the Fourth Amendment and youre saying that Law Enforcement has done something reasonable. Thats a very low threshold and that is what the court has embraced today and youre certainly seeing it with the roberts court. With terry versus ohio. They sort of set this ship on that course. 1967. Absolutely. I find myself with 50 seconds left and i apologize to the final caller. We will be dealing with the miranda decision also by the war of court which is another in the series of cases and well spend the final half hour talking about the warren Court Overall and their approach to these reviews and what it has done to the judicial process and talk about that in a bigpicture way and i hope youll be with us for that program. As we close i want to ask you about the map and what people should take away from the fact that a citizen map is the focus of a landmark case with the Supreme Court. Theres always going to be a story behind these cases and they involve real people with the challenges and they involve people who have a lot of personal strength to really see a situation and to go to the courts for relief and to fight her way all of the way to the Supreme Court. So there really are cases about individuals that have Lasting Impact upon all americans and any one of us could be that individual. Although, frankly, nobody can be like map. And what are your final thoughts about this case and its importance . That we all have a role to play in the protection of our Constitutional Rights and we have to stand up to protect the constitutional or it ends up becoming a dead letter and dolly did that. Thanks to our guests on matt v. Ohio and thank you for your questions and comments. It always makes the program interesting. Thanks for being with us. Cspan has unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the Supreme Court and Public Policy events. You can watch all of cspans Public Affairs programming on television, online or listen on our free radio app and be part of the National Conversation through cspans daily Washington Journal Program or through our social media feeds. Cspan created by americas television companies. As a Public Service and brought to you today by your television provider. Tonight on American History tv our series on landmark cases produced in cooperation with the National Constitution center. We explore the issues, people and places involved in some of the nations most significant Supreme Court cases. We begin at 8 00 eastern with miranda v. Arizona, the 1966 case which established that police must notify subjects of their right to counsel and their right to avoid selfincrimination. Then at 9 35, roe v. Wade. The 1973 case which had held the due process clause of the 14th amendment protects a womans right to terminate a pregnancy. Watch landmark cases tonight on cspan3 and any time at cspan. Org. All persons having business before the honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States are admonished to draw near a