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. Lets 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 helped stick together because they believe in a rule of law. Good evening and welcome to cspans landmark cases where weve been learning more about the cases of the Supreme Court that affected the court and the country. Tonight, 1961 case of mapp v. Ohio. An ohio woman refused to let the Police Search her house without a warrant. All this evolved into a case that was one of a series in the warren court that changed policing in america. We welcome you with us this program and hope youve been with us throughout the series as weve been learning so much about the Supreme Court. Let me introduce you to our two guests. I should tell you before i do weve actually been en
States Supreme Court decision in mapp v. Ohio is the heart of tonights program. That decision, as you probably also know changed the way courts in this country exclude evidence or consider evidence obtained in violation of our Fourth Amendment rights. Before the decision in mapp, the remedy of excluding evidence was unpredictable at best. If a Police Officer enters or searches our home, our car, our purse, our cell phone, we expect that the judge will prohibit that evidence from being used in a prosecution against us. Motions to suppress evidence are now expected. Theyre common. Defense lawyers in the oj simpson murder trial moved to exclude both blood and hair evidence from the trial of that case. Counsel for ted kaczynski, better known as the unabomber moved to exclude evidence of an unexploded bomb, a journal in which mr. Kaczynski admitted almost 16 of his bombings, and even his manifesto, all found within a remote montana cabin. In both of those notorious cases, the motions to sup
Federal agencies to enact new regulations. Representing millions of americans. We are joined in the belief that our countrys system of regulatory safeguards should provide a stable free market that secures our way of life, paves the way for a sound economy and benefits us all. I would like to thank the Economic Policy institute for hosting us today and for all of their work and support in this event. I would also like to thank americans for financial reform, the environmental working group, union of concerned scientists, kids in cars, Environmental Defense fund, Public Citizen and my colleagues at Consumer Federation of america for all of their work in preparation for todays event. Id also like to remind everyone that we are live tweeting at the hashtags hurt by deregulation and go away raa. This morning we are here to discuss the very real and significant consequences of deregulation. As a country, we depend on rules to make our lives safer, healthier and more fair. However, there are
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. Lets 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 helped stick together because they believe in a rule of law. Good evening and welcome to cspans landmark cases where weve been learning more about the cases of the Supreme Court that affected the court and the country. Tonight, 1961 case of mapp v. Ohio. An ohio woman refused to let the Police Search her house without a warrant. All this evolved into a case that was one of a series in the warren court that changed policing in america. We welcome you with us this program and hope youve been with us throughout the series as weve been learning so much about the Supreme Court. Let me introduce you to our two guests. I should tell you before i do weve actually been en
States Supreme Court decision in mapp v. Ohio is the heart of tonights program. That decision, as you probably also know changed the way courts in this country exclude evidence or consider evidence obtained in violation of our Fourth Amendment rights. Before the decision in mapp, the remedy of excluding evidence was unpredictable at best. If a Police Officer enters or searches our home, our car, our purse, our cell phone, we expect that the judge will prohibit that evidence from being used in a prosecution against us. Motions to suppress evidence are now expected. Theyre common. Defense lawyers in the oj simpson murder trial moved to exclude both blood and hair evidence from the trial of that case. Counsel for ted kaczynski, better known as the unabomber moved to exclude evidence of an unexploded bomb, a journal in which mr. Kaczynski admitted almost 16 of his bombings, and even his manifesto, all found within a remote montana cabin. In both of those notorious cases, the motions to sup