Become a Creator today!Start creating today - Share your story with the world!
Start for free
00:00:00
00:00:01
#4 Mapp v. Ohio
47 Plays8 months ago
In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio.
One evening, police arrived at the home of DM and demanded to be let in to conduct a search. After calling her lawyer, DM declined to allow police to enter her home without a search warrant. Police eventually broke down her door and searched her home despite not having a search warrant. DM was later tried and convicted for possession of obscene material. She appealed her conviction.
The question before the court: are state courts subject to the same constitutional requirements as the federal courts?
This is episode 3 of a 3-part series on the development of the Exclusionary Rule.
Recommended
Transcript
Introduction to 'Re-litigated' and Case Overview
00:00:00
Speaker
Hi, I'm Nikki, and welcome to Re-litigated, the podcast where five legal idiots retry a real Supreme Court case. This episode focuses on MAP versus the United States and is the last episode in our three-part series about the exclusionary rule.
00:00:19
Speaker
Hey there, sorry to interrupt. Real quick, this is Jared in the edit bay. We missed in the proofread. The name of the case is actually Map the Ohio, not Map the United States. Again, very sorry about that. The case is Map the Ohio. Okay, back to the show. Real quick, before we begin, we try our best to get the facts and decisions in this case as correct as possible, but don't trust our legal knowledge. Enjoy the show.
00:00:49
Speaker
Good jurisprudence with a cat doing a thumbs up. Oh, hell yeah. Adam will probably design something real cool looking. That sounds good. Wait, the cat needs to be in a powdered wig. At least. That's the minimum requirement. You're just doing my work for me here. This is the creative process I inevitably would have gone through on my own accord, but you're just accelerating me. And that's what this is all about is accelerationism. Am I right, guys? That's true. That's very true. I don't actually know what that word means.
00:01:17
Speaker
I thought it was about jurisprudence, but that's how that word's out. speaking of jurisprudence, ah welcome to the Relitigated Podcast. I am your host, Nikki, and I'm joined by my co-host, Jared. What's up? We also have with us three justices, except they're not justices or lawyers or legally informed at all. ah First, we have Associate Justice Adam. Hello folks. I'm here again for some reason. It's a powdered wig. You can't get enough of it. You can't take it off. how to like Is it glued to your head? It's the Hotel California of headwear. It appears to have a mind of its own.
00:02:08
Speaker
This is why there's a surgeon general's warning on the and inside of powdered wigs now. Every powder wig. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. so And the powder refill cartridges that you can get at 7-Eleven. And they're known to the state of California specifically to have a cancer causing chemicals. Yeah. Cause it's just straight asbestos. Nice. And then we have associate justice, Chris. well What's going on?
00:02:37
Speaker
Why was that meow so good? Shocking training acumen over there with Kitty. I know. I've been spending my whole life for that. More cats, less law. Yeah, yeah it worked. It paid off, I think. Yeah, exactly. And of course, we have our Chief Justice, Sarah. Greetings to all. I will not be meowing this episode.
00:03:05
Speaker
It's really unclear why you get to be Chief Justice every time. Is it? Yeah, actually no, it's not.
00:03:13
Speaker
yeah she Yeah. She looked at the extensive nomination and vetting process and got confirmed. Of course. Yeah. She was the only one smart enough to not put a powdered wig on. Yeah.
00:03:28
Speaker
The powdered wig is within, you know? Yeah. You were, you were strong enough to just internalize that and not need a powdered wig. That's very brave. Just eventually it gets absorbed. its Reverse Thor's hammer. It is full of chalk. Here to be an aspiration for all. Please continue to lead us.
Background of 'Map v. Ohio' and Legal Issues
00:03:46
Speaker
Whatever. I'm the most jurisprudent. Let's just say that. That's true.
00:03:53
Speaker
So how this works is none of us are lawyers, right? 100%. Oh God, no. Yeah, exactly. Every week I desire to be a lawyer less and less. I actually, yeah, I i get it. Yeah.
00:04:08
Speaker
Uh, Jarrett and I have picked a real Supreme court case and our justices do not know what case we have selected. Not that it matters because since they're not lawyers, even if we told them, they wouldn't necessarily know anyway. Yeah. We're not nerds or like have memorized the entire docket of the Supreme court forever. Like some of us, I know. I think Jarrett feels attacked.
00:04:35
Speaker
I wasn't talking about anyone in particular, just a hypothetical someone. Just yeah, just hypothetically if there was someone out there who in their spare time. Might be interested in court to the extent that yeah, yeah. Wrote a script and invited their friends to talk about it. That'd be kind of weird and I don't know.
00:04:55
Speaker
Speaking of, Jarrett's gonna introduce the case to us and walk us through the facts and events so we can all get familiar with the details. The justices are free to ask factual questions during this time and we will answer as best we can. Next, we'll move into oral arguments where today I will represent the petitioner, the person complaining, and Jarrett will role play as the respondent, ah the government, who is being complained about.
00:05:25
Speaker
We each get seven minutes to make our case, during which the justices can interrupt us and ask us questions. When the arguments are over, the justices will deliberate and deliver their own opinions. The final rulings do not need to be unanimous, majority opinion wins. Even if two or more justices agree in principle, they can disagree as to why.
00:05:51
Speaker
Once we finished our hearing and Sarah's court makes a ruling, Jarrett and I will reveal what the Supreme Court actually decided and talk about how we feel about the actual results. All right, sound good to everyone? Sounds great. it Sounds amazing. Affirmative. Yeah, I actually didn't hear you say the word cat once in that opening monologue, and I'm just going to let it slide this one time. There's still time. I'll try to do better next time. Yes, please do.
00:06:22
Speaker
All right, Jared, please introduce our case for today. All right, here we go. Our case for this episode is Map v. Ohio. We begin in Cleveland with D.M. who lived with her adolescent daughter in the top floor of a two-family house that she owns.
00:06:44
Speaker
One day, three col cleveland ahlare cleveland Cleveland police officers arrive at DM's front door looking to search the place. They had information that a person wanted in connection with the recent bombing was hiding out there. There was also information that a quote, large amount of gambling paraphernalia was hidden in the home, end quote. but What goes with bombing stuff, you know? Sure, yeah.
00:07:08
Speaker
The police knocked on the door and demanded to be let in so that they could search the house, but DM stepped away, called her lawyer, and the lawyer advised her that she should only let the officers in if they have a search warrant. Thank you. Sensible. Sensible. When she asked the officers for a warrant, they had none, and she barred them entry to her home. Smart. Good. One of the officers informed his superiors that they couldn't get into the house because they needed a search warrant.
00:07:36
Speaker
A few minutes later, several more police cars surrounded the house. The record's not actually fully clear as to who knew what, but from what we can see, at least two officers didn't try to get a warrant, but nonetheless were informed by other officers that a different officer had actually obtained a search warrant. Oh Jesus. It gets confusing when there's a lot of people on the scene, you know. Yes, exactly, yeah. He said, she said,
00:08:03
Speaker
but They they said about themselves that kind of collectively in some sort of like blue wall wait right ah Regardless there was no record of any search warrant womp womp It was never produced and no officer later ah none of the officers later when they were questioned and knew anything about it.
00:08:24
Speaker
I don't know, Jared. I'm going to stop you right there because it kind of seems like cases close. Everyone's guilty. They didn't have a warrant. I don't want to hear the rest. Literally, every single person you've mentioned so far is guilty of something.
00:08:37
Speaker
Porque no los dos. Porque no los todos. was going to say, it's todos. It's all deserved. Three hours after the officer's initial arrival, the police knocked on the door again, but since when Diem did not immediately come to the door and was delayed in answering, the police forcibly broke open the door and entered the home. Classic. At about this point, Diem's attorney actually arrived on scene, but the police would not let him see his client or enter the house.
00:09:11
Speaker
Inside the house, DM encountered the officers halfway down the stairs from her unit upstairs and demanded that they show her the search warrant. The police held up a piece of white paper that they stated was the warrant. DM demanded to see and read that paper, but they refused to allow her to do so. And in response, DM grabbed the paper from the officer who had held it up.
00:09:34
Speaker
This began a scuffle. DM was able to get the paper away from the officer, and ah she put it in her and know inner shirt or a blouse or whatever. Yeah, her ah bosom. During the ensuing struggle, officers were able to recover the paper, where ah but it did require one officer putting his hands into her bosom to remove the paper.
00:09:57
Speaker
So, subsequently, Diem was handcuffed for being, quote, belligerent. There were allegations that she had some injury from the twisting of her hand, and she was taken upstairs to her bedroom.
00:10:09
Speaker
Inside the bedroom, officers searched a dresser, chest of drawers, a closet, some suitcases, a photo album, and DM's personal papers. They then searched the rest of the residence, including the child's bedroom, the living room, kitchen, and dinette. Continuing to the basement, they found a trunk and searched through that as well. And ultimately the police found lottery paraphernalia, which would be and an any illegal lottery, and obscene literature, which was illegal under state law to possess.
00:10:40
Speaker
Can we clarify what gambling paraphernalia is or is that is that a thing? my my My best guess is it was probably, you know, ah this is the log books. Log books, okay. Log books of like, this person bought this number, this person bought that number. Are we talking like like they upended the family parcheesi board and they're like, ah, we got them boys, we got some dice.
00:11:05
Speaker
I think, ah let's see, maybe bedding slips. Okay. All right. Yeah. Receipts. Okay. Let the people bet. And this is distinct from the obscene literature, to be clear. Yes. Found ah found with, I believe. Ooh. Scandalous. I think it's unclear if it was found in the trunk or not. That was the vibe I got. It was found in the trunk.
00:11:32
Speaker
in one there were yeah they In one party, they assert it was found in the trunk, in the basement, and other party asserts it was found um in the dresser, I think. With all of these cases, the most interesting thing to me so far is it's just like jazz. It's the notes they don't play. like They don't even bother to go into the salient details of like, tell me more about the obscene literature. No, no, no, no, no, not for this court. Yeah.
00:12:00
Speaker
It's the Sharpe 11 in the Euclidean scale. Well, there is there there was some there is some description, books and a drawing, a pencil drawing. Wow. Undescribed, because that would be obscene to describe its contours. It's illegal contours. Yes. Anyway, sorry. I've really ah been drawn to the Purian details of this case. so Please continue.
00:12:23
Speaker
DM was charged with possession of lottery paraphernalia, but she was ultimately acquitted of that charge because they couldn't prove that it was hers. about Almost a year later, not quite a year later, DM went on trial for possession of obscene materials. oh my god At that trial, the prosecution did not produce the search warrant and they did not explain whether or not it existed at all.
00:12:46
Speaker
D.M.'s attorney objected to the introduction of evidence from the search and filed a motion to suppress it, but the court denied that motion. She was then convicted for the possession of the obscene material and sentenced to one to seven years in prison.
00:13:03
Speaker
D.M.'s lawyer appealed her case to the Ohio Supreme Court, arguing primarily that Ohio's obscenity law violated the right to privacy. He also noted the police that the police conduct in gathering the evidence was unconstitutional.
00:13:17
Speaker
The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that there was a, quote, reasonable argument, end quote, for reversing the conviction on the grounds that the way the evidence was obtained was problematic. However, the evidence had not been taken from D.M.'s person by, quote, brutal or offensive physical force, end quote. So it remained admissible. Which constitutional amendment talks about brutalism? What?
00:13:43
Speaker
Ohio is like an alternate universe where everything bad seems to happen. Yeah, guys, we're flipping the script. We're putting Ohio on trial here. ah Additionally, the Supreme Court had held in Wolf v. Colorado that the 14th Amendment does not apply in the prosecution of a state crime in a state court. Unsatisfied with this ruling, Diem's attorney appealed it to the U.S. Supreme Court The court also invited a lawyer from the American Civil Liberties Union, which is the ACLU, to submit a brief. And this lawyer actually joined the oral arguments. And during the petitioner's arguments, it was actually the ACLU lawyer who asked the court to consider whether state courts could use illegally obtained evidence at trial. Which brings us to today's question, were the confiscated materials protected from seizure by the Fourth Amendment?
00:14:42
Speaker
um I'm still hung up on the dirty drawings. They didn't have a warrant.
00:14:50
Speaker
ah yeah life It feels like we're being tested in this opening season ah to just see how far our liberal modern sensibilities can be stretched in the context of historical policing practices.
00:15:08
Speaker
like
00:15:12
Speaker
What ridiculous injustices will we re encounter next week? Hops reached into her bra to get the paper. They're lucky.
00:15:22
Speaker
that they didn't have she's lucky that they didn't have their guns on them at the time
00:15:28
Speaker
okay quick okay so quick notes some some quick notes real quick to finish out please ax here ah quick talk of precedent a reminder that we've actually done some similar cases on this show already, and that they might apply or you might be, you know, expected to to be have those in the back of your mind. So the first one is Weeks v. United States, where our esteemed panel of justices decided unanimously that evidence obtained without a search warrant could not be used in federal court against a criminal defendant. That's true. the the episode immediately after that one, our esteemed justices took on Wolf v. Colorado and ruled two to one that the week's decision, which applies to federal courts, does not apply to state courts. So state courts can decide for themselves if they, what what evidence should be allowed and which evidence should not be allowed.
00:16:30
Speaker
And I just want to note that our own panel of justices' rulings mirrors exactly the supreme the actual Supreme Court's rulings on the case. So the actual Supreme Court in Weeks v. United States was unanimously in favor of federal courts ah not allowing this evidence to be admissible and was a, so I believe, six to three decision in Wolfie, Colorado that state courts could decide for themselves what they wanted to do.
Debate on Police Conduct and Constitutional Rights
00:17:00
Speaker
I also wanna remind you all of your porque no los dos, which you've already referenced yourselves, which states the Sarah Court decided that ah law officers who conduct illegal searches and seizures should be subject to punishment and the defendant absolved if possible. Yeah, yeah, that's the thing we said once. I do believe we've been led into a trap, friends. We must tread very lightly.
00:17:29
Speaker
Um, but also they didn't have a search warrant. Indeed. I still want to know why the state of Ohio has any interest in dirty drawings held in people's footlockers, a pencil drawing, the gambling, the gambling stuff, you know, whatever, like sit, you could just throw it away. Right? Yeah. What are we, why is it's okay. So this must've happened in like,
00:18:00
Speaker
I don't even know. 1997. Like the 1400s. Like, this is crazy. 1400s. The US Supreme Court, of course. um Yeah, well, it's also, you know, there's no federal involvement, right? um So that's, that's part of it. I guess the the question that panned here is, ah Ohio allowed to be as garbage as they want? I guess, well, is it colorado there's nothing in the rules that says, Ohio can't be garbage if they want to be.
00:18:30
Speaker
That's true. Yeah. Okay. Well, I'm ready to hear some arguments and they better be spicy. I guess one before we get into arguments. Um, the fact that the Supreme court says that the evident, the way that evidence was gathered, it provides reasonable for reversing conviction. And then they were just like, nah,
00:18:57
Speaker
that was the just to be clear That was the Ohio State Supreme Court. Yes. Yes. Yeah, actually, I do want to go back up for a second to the the whole brutal force thing. like since When is that a qualifier that matters?
00:19:13
Speaker
Also didn't you say that she had injuries to her wrist? Like she was injured. Right. If they just violated her rights more gently, this wouldn't be a big deal. They would have violated her rights with, with words. If they had like whispered softly like, ma'am, we're going to grope you to obtain this illegally ah seized evidence. And she's like, okay, that wouldn't be a big deal. But no, they had to be forceful, but it didn't amount to brutality. And therefore they're off the hook. This is like Calvin ball guys.
00:19:41
Speaker
So the ah the brutal and offensive physical force, it appears to come from um other ah precedent, some other cases where um you know they're talking about the the methods you know and talking about offending a sense of justice and um yeah brutal or offensive physical force against the person of the defendant. I'm absolutely reeling in how utterly subjective the most critical foundational bedrock precedent of our legal system is.
00:20:12
Speaker
It's just like however a bunch of guys were feeling at any given moment. I guess that's the whole lesson we're supposed to be learning here. Tune in next time. Quick question. What happened to the bombing suspect? We lost that block. dropback Where did that go? How did we go from a bombing suspect to a pencil drawing of a peen? You know what I mean? So um from what I can recall, I think they did find the guy they were looking for, but he wasn't in her unit. So they just were like, while we're here, we might as well get this lady on something.
00:20:52
Speaker
That's what, that's the vibe that I'm getting with this whole thing. He was, he was on the property, just not in her unit. Is that a euphemism in her unit? No, like there was, remember they have the two, um, like that her domicile. Okay. So like the the, where she was living, they didn't find him here. They found him in the downstairs apartment, I think slippery.
00:21:16
Speaker
Yeah. She owned the place. It was a two family home. So she rented out. you know, half of the house. We have no idea what the original tip was that sent the cops here. Not that it matters. Right. Like who snitched, you know, again, this is a, this is a very snitches get stitches, uh, paddle of justice. Yeah. We live in a contemporary age, my friend. to the one decision the The justices have ruled that snitches get stitches. Yeah. It was, it was an anonymous tip called in, I think.
00:21:49
Speaker
Always want to be anonymous, you cowards. Yeah, see, again, this is this this rise does not rise to my my extremely precise and profoundly jurisprudent a judicial standard of, if the evidence was so good, why didn't you get a warrant, you dummies? like Could you not find any corrupt judge, any sleepy man in his night robe to come to the door and sign your stupid warrant in whatever godforsaken year this was?
00:22:21
Speaker
And you had just had to go cowboy and just like search this lady's jester drawers for dirty drawings. like How did we get here? I think part of the issue is that some cops told other cops that there was a warrant.
00:22:35
Speaker
the cop grapevine, of course. Cops should not be playing telephone. They should not be allowed to speak to one another, actually. That's that's a new new ruling of the court. Sometimes when I'm at work, guys, I like to sit and think like when I'm looking around a meeting, like how much did this meeting cost? like All these people are paid professionals with salaries. like This is very expensive for everyone to be here for an hour to the cops ever sit and think about that like how much of this dirty drawing fishing expedition cost the state of ohio to the state of ohio ever demand a reckoning for the ah roi on this god damn expedition i assume know this is this is the government government doesn't do that.
00:23:11
Speaker
Especially not in Ohio. that's That's private industry nonsense. and We're not returning anything. Today's episode is sponsored by the Ohio but Chamber of Commerce Bureau of Tourism. The River Authority. That's a thing, right? Is that a thing? I feel like we've gotten way off track, guys. Yes.
00:23:40
Speaker
I'm prepared to put seven minutes on the clock for Nikki here to make her argument. yeah I'm ready to go. All right, three, two, one, go. All right. ah Esteemed justices, we are here again. Yes, we are. And I'm going to start by once again reminding you that the Fourth Amendment protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. This amendment also states that there need to be warrants based upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
00:24:36
Speaker
see The 14th Amendment says that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. And we are here, again, because of the insufficiency of state measures to date.
00:24:56
Speaker
This conviction is a violation of DM's constitutional rights under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment because the case was based on the unlawful search and seizure from her home. Notwithstanding the absolutely silly law she was accused of violating, having obscene materials in her home not shared with anyone, there was no warrant. This purported warrant has not been produced.
00:25:25
Speaker
There is no record of it. And even if there were any weren't, there wasn't. The lottery paraphernalia would have been the only thing listed on it.
00:25:37
Speaker
Despite the lack of the warrant, the police broke into her home, put their hands in her clothing, handcuffed her, hauled her around her own home, and crawled through every room in search of any scintilla that would suggest some criminal activity.
00:25:58
Speaker
Ohio law requires that a search warrant describe the particular things that police are searching for with language that is essentially identical to that of the U.S. Constitution. The law and the Ohio Constitution forbids any warrant except with probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and describing what it is they're looking for.
00:26:22
Speaker
The Constitution of Ohio finally states that an officer who engages in a legal search and seizure in a dwelling that uncovers no evidence is a trespasser and can have action taken against him or her. The search at DM's home was the very invasive conduct that the federal and state constitution sought to prevent. And yet here we are again.
00:26:49
Speaker
The police's serendipitous discovery of materials was essentially their get-out-of-jail-free card, allowing them to escape any deterrence for their illegal behavior. I'll remind you again, they were looking for a person, they were looking for gambling paraphernalia, and yet ah DM is being charged up on obscene materials, not listed on the non-existent warrant.
00:27:12
Speaker
If the court thought that the states would police their police in the Wolf decision, this case and others like it show that these alternative remedies of lawsuits and public oversight over the police are not working. At this point, the court has to be the one to act to protect citizens' rights and ensure due process. The government has to follow its own rules, otherwise what's the point of documenting its responsibilities and obligations?
00:27:42
Speaker
Why even have a constitution? So really, evidence obtained illegally should not be allowed at trial, and allowing it at trial is a violation of the Constitution, the Fourth and fourth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment. Really, the court needs to re-examine this constitutionality of searches and seizures in state courts if federal courts prohibit the admission of evidence obtained illegally.
00:28:06
Speaker
By not applying the exclusionary rule to state proceedings, the court has introduced a conflict between state and federal courts. So what's to stop a federal agent from testifying in a state court about illegally obtained evidence? How is this not just an end run around the constitution for the purpose of getting a conviction? Now,
00:28:36
Speaker
In consideration of the Wolff case, ah the court did take a look at what states were doing. And so prior to that decision, almost two-thirds of states were opposed to the exclusionary rule as the court determined.
00:28:50
Speaker
However, after the Wolf decision, more than half the states have taken up or followed the rule either by passing their own laws or through court decisions. For example, California adopted an exclusionary rule on a court decision specifically because the other remedies did not work in getting authorities to comply with the Constitution.
00:29:14
Speaker
So if the court is considering how states are coming to think about citizen rights and searches and seizures, the trend among the states is toward the exclusion of evidence. And this consensus suggests that this protection is fundamental and necessary for the protection of our rights. I thank the court very much. I'm willing to take questions.
00:29:36
Speaker
Nikki, no questions again from me this time. Stellar job. And yeah, I agree. I'm gonna be an interesting one for Jared to try to convince me of otherwise once again. I don't think you can do that, but okay, wait a second. I really thought I understood how the Supremacy Clause worked, and I'm less and less sure every passing week. Can you explain again what you identified in the Ohio state ah constitution that would make this search and seizure illegal. I think you mentioned that. I just want to make sure I was clear.
00:30:10
Speaker
So Ohio has its own um laws and amendments um that specifically you know require warrants and they have this warrant requirement that's identical to the Fourth Amendment. um In addition, ah there's ah there's Ohio law that says that if police engage in an illegal search and seizure and a dwelling and they don't uncover any evidence, then the police are in the wrong and can be subject to action.
00:30:38
Speaker
Yeah, it seems fairly cut and dry. Oh man, this is going to go just like last week, isn't it? Well, I think the difference here is that the police, um you know, they they broke into the home forcefully versus they used the key in the other case. That's true. That's true. themselves it Great point. Yes. Wow. All right. Man, a few words, but they were good words. The best words.
00:31:08
Speaker
Thank you, Nikki. I think we are good with our questions. It's time for the historical cat halftime, right? Where the cats do a little Super Bowl sort of thing, right? That's what we do? Yeah, the kitten bowl. Can we say that? The kitten bowl. Is that a trademark? The Supreme Court should adopt this practice. They should, right? It's unfortunate. It would ease the tension. That they haven't thought of this yet. This could be a better place. Real lack of creative thinkers over there. Anyway.
00:31:36
Speaker
Two observations. at Number one, I just love a justice telling my opposing counsel, great job. so ah Nobody ever said that we were good at this. Nobody ever said that we were very partial. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a judge. What do you want?
00:31:54
Speaker
Secondly, opposing counsel use the word scintilla, and that's a level of rhetoric I'm not prepared to rise to. you Actually, I made a note to try that out. yeah Good luck, buddy. I was going to give her extra points for that, but I thought that that would be impartial and thus not jurisprudent.
00:32:13
Speaker
All right. I've got my shovel and I'm prepared to start digging whatever whenever the timer starts. Oh wait, let me grab my... Prostate yourself before the judges, fool. Give us your feeble argument before we break the bounds. Grovel for mercy. All right, you can, you're ready to go, Jarrett? Yep. Okay, all right, and three, two, one. Miss Chief Justice, and may it please the court, are we really doing this again? This feels like deja vu.
00:32:49
Speaker
The last time this court met, by a two to one decision, you agreed that state courts have their own jurisdiction over the rules of evidence.
State vs. Federal Rights in Evidence Admissibility
00:32:57
Speaker
They can decide for themselves whether evidence can or cannot be used at trial. If the wiseness of your decision demands reinforcement, let me remind you that the US Supreme Court agreed with you as well. In Wolfie, Colorado, the Supreme Court also gave deference to state courts to make their own decisions.
00:33:17
Speaker
It is the respondent's opinion that this court, and also the Supreme Court, got it right the first time. After all, the court the state courts and the law enforcement members they oversee are much closer to the voting public than the federal government is. The voice of the voter is more personal in the states, and it should be respected.
00:33:37
Speaker
Now make no mistake, the petitioner is not asking you to clarify or explain some unexplored facet of a larger question. At its core, this is the exact same case as Wolf v. Colorado.
00:33:54
Speaker
In both cases, we have defendants that have had property searched by police without a warrant. In both cases, the courts allowed evidence found in those searches to be used against the defendants per the statutes governing that state's courts. In both cases, the defendants asked this court to overturn those convictions because of the illegal search. There is a legal principle called stare decisis, which I've probably mispronounced.
00:34:24
Speaker
That means when there is a precedent telling you the answer, respect that precedent and apply it. We have a very clear precedent in this case that comes from Wolf v. Colorado. While evidence obtained without a search warrant cannot be used against a defendant in federal court, the states are free to set the rules and do what they want in their own courts. Overturning this precedent would be judicial overreach.
00:34:52
Speaker
In the time since the court decided that evidence obtained dubiously should be excluded in federal court, some states have adopted a similar stance for their courts, and some have not. At one point, it was close to an even split between states that did and did not embrace this rule. This is the well-oiled functioning of a federalist system that has many layers from federal to state to local.
00:35:21
Speaker
I also want to note the idea that letting a guilty person go free to punish law enforcement remains nonsensical. My understanding is that at the time of this case, Ohio law considered police officers conducting a search without a warrant to be subject to arrest for trespassing, at least if they didn't find something illegal, as well as they were open to civil suits.
00:35:43
Speaker
So they can't just be searching everyone without repercussions and they should only be searching if they believe they'll actually find something or they will get punished. That is what this court said. You have to have some remedy if they screw up. There is a remedy if they screw up. This is the correct remedy for their bad behavior. Provide a mechanism that punishes the perpetrator instead of unpunishing a perpetrator of a wholly separate crime.
00:36:11
Speaker
I trust the justices will do the right thing and swift their own good past decisions here in this case and allow us all to move on to more pressing matters that we haven't already talked about. New horse not yet dead that we are not going to beat to death. Thank you. I yield to questions with my remaining time.
00:36:33
Speaker
Man, I got to say like the whole strategy of you guys were right the first time, very compelling, very strong. However, I do feel like you are slow walking us into defending slavery or some abhorrent shit. Oh yeah, you're the villain. Four words. You are absolutely the heel on this relationship. Yeah, porque no los dos, right?
00:36:58
Speaker
We punish the cops for trespassing and hurting this woman, not having a warrant, doing all the bad things. And we drop DM's charges. Why do we have a constitution if it's not going to protect the people? Anyways. The constitution has, but I believe it's Marbury versus Madison, gives the courts the ability to weigh in on the constitutionality and then to interpret the constitution and Ms. Chief Justice, your court has interpreted the Constitution as well as the Supreme Court. and I don't like that you're calling it my court because I dissented both on Wolfie, Colorado. ah that That's management for you. That the 10th Amendment that devolves power back to the states, gives the states the authority two you know to manage the process the way that they choose to do so. I don't want to be in this court anymore.
00:37:58
Speaker
I'll gladly be Supreme Court Justice if you just abdicate. This is now turned into an internal power struggle. Please stop the clock. ah Okay, wait a second. Focus, focus. I think he might be right and I hate saying that, but guys, somebody say something to tell me that he's not right. I'm very easily swayed.
00:38:20
Speaker
so i Um, so two things, right? Two things. The first is that the police actually broke into the house this time. It's true. They, they waited, they broke in, they forcibly, um, they led a, not a witness, but like they led the, uh, defendant on, you know, with, with the fake warrant potentially, uh, and kind of, you know,
00:38:45
Speaker
mocked her almost. um And that's kind of offensive. i so I submit that that's not ultimately relevant. It was still a, in a legal search, which I'm not questioning. Yes. Yeah. What I'm saying is that in in Ohio state court, that doesn't matter. Right. It still produced some dirty drawings and therefore But so the the actual law that ohio the ohio if we should look at the laws the Ohio Supreme Court has put into place and said, are they um are they no good? right And like the law that they have that actually the conviction of of this person, right the law that they are convicted, the crime that they're convicted of, but is that no good? Is that constitutional or not?
00:39:35
Speaker
um As a representative currently of the state of Ohio, my belief is that the state of Ohio is governing its own affairs just fine without the input of the federal government. Thank you very much. Defending Ohio. Just remember that. I'm defending like it not paid to defend. Listen, he doesn't know anything except Ohio. We just have to let him be. He's a simple boy.
00:40:01
Speaker
Okay, okay. okay those healthy things in head i I think that is compelling that they had to break like a whole bunch of laws and just be jerks generally. I mean, let's just be objective about it.
00:40:16
Speaker
just to get the evidence that they, I mean, what was the evidence again? It was some gambling slips or something, maybe some poker chips. That were proved not to be hers. And and yeah a dirty drawing or two. ah First of all. A pencil drawing. Extremely invested in the idea that she drew these drawings herself, so I'm just deciding that that's true and canon.
00:40:37
Speaker
And every time I think about them, they become more and more disturbing. um But yeah, I think that what they seized like relative to how much egregious law breaking had to go on to seize it, ah does feel warm that feels worth considering.
00:40:56
Speaker
yeah Couldn't agree more. like If she had killed 17 people on her way home and they were like, We saw her trailing blood as she was eating the human heart. That's probable cause. That's probable cause. I guess that's probably cause. So we're further we're so far beyond that conversation of probable cause at this point. It's like how badly did they break the law? i were how They just in her house. that's anyway You close your eyes and just you open them and all of a sudden the cops are in your house and who can account for it?
00:41:24
Speaker
buts Very powerful. My but but my time has as long since expired, so thank thank you kindly. um and I'm over here pontificating on the magical powers of the police in Ohio specifically. If anyone has any leads on this, please email the show. Let us know if you've seen the cops undergoing any sort of transmogrification or teleportation. We want to know about it. Good jurisprudence. Thank you. I agree.
00:41:51
Speaker
yeah i think I think we're well into deliberation at this point. I think we were into deliberation as soon as Sarah said, great job. but
00:42:03
Speaker
I don't want to waste time. I know i'm guy go with my gut and I know what I believe, and that is why I am not actually in practice a lawyer or a judge. Yeah. That's true. I'll take it a step further. I've never actually like read a full Supreme Court decision from start to finish. like I'm familiar with loosely how they work. Do they ever get a chance to like riff in those things? They're very opinion taking, right?
00:42:27
Speaker
Yeah. Yeah. At the end. Yeah. this part decisions been made Deliberate. Yeah. Yeah. They read a lot like papers I used to write for school where I, I knew what I wanted to say before I read the book I was supposed to be writing about. And then I was like, Oh, I should probably go find some things that corroborate my opinion. Natural born, born lawyer. Like that, that feels like you got the instinct. Yeah. You shared it on a lawyer.
00:42:55
Speaker
He's very smart. He's very smart. Very sure. Definitely not a lawyer. Yeah. You could if you wanted to be. and That's why we believe in you. You're a very smart young man. Okay. We got to deliberate. We got an important task in front of us. We have to decide just how naughty can the police be before it is in fact them committing the crime.
00:43:16
Speaker
I'm going to start by saying, uh, it's going to be hard to move me on this one because in Wolf V, Colorado, I dissented. We made a mistake. Right. I was thinking, I didn't want to come out and say, Hey, Adam and Chris, you guys made a mistake. Uh, cause you know, respect your opinions as members of my coach. Uh, but I just think fundamentally, like.
00:43:45
Speaker
if the constitution under the fourth amendment protects people against like being searched without a warrant and all that good stuff, then why can the states just decide in their little courts that they just don't want to use this? Little pitiful, meaningless, literally unconsequential courts.
00:44:14
Speaker
They're tiny minuscule courts. I was not imitating anyone. ah Okay, you know what, actually, it's the it's the fabricated. search warrant that gets me here. As I reflect on the material evidence- That's so low. It's the fact that they- So low. What am I doing? Be professional. At that point they lose whatever like cop license, any cop latitude that they had, they lose any sort of benefit of the doubt. It is embarrassing. Are they not embarrassed? They're just goons. That's silly. Ohio is silly.
00:44:51
Speaker
I'm willing to condemn the entire state for this, yeah. I think the Ohio State Supreme Court, um you know they they kind of opened the door to say that the evidence the way that the evidence was gathered provides the reasonable argument for reversing conviction. Absolutely.
00:45:12
Speaker
my My thing is that you know they have made decisions ah yeah that kind of go against their own ideas. right they They're basically saying, yeah, we have these laws. um yeah the The cops didn't follow them. But you know what? Hey, meh. And then now we're kind of sitting here saying, did you actually enforce your own laws?
00:45:38
Speaker
I feel like that cat is also very outraged. ah A cat's an anarchist. He's pissed. Less lawnmower cats. That's what we've been saying. Less lawnmower cats. He's screaming. He's screaming for justice. I am a prisoner in my own office. He's saying, let this case go. The Ohio Supreme Court should let the cops go to jail.
00:46:08
Speaker
Yeah. I know, buddy. No, that cat is a state rights absolutist. That cat's a fascist. Oh, my cats are fascists. That cat believes in the three-fifths compromise. Jesus. Okay. Too far. Alan's too far. Hey, I'll order in the court. I think I was a good time to say that. I'm calling your cat a racist for the record. I just want to make that super clear.
00:46:38
Speaker
Great Chris, you were so rudely interrupted by a feline. The kitten was was had a lot of opinions. um But i I do think part of the appeal right was that the obscenity law is unconstitutional. And so I think we it's in our right to evaluate that right because the court Yeah, because the Ohio Supreme Court or Ohio State Constitution has made a law that could potentially deprive a person from their life, liberty, whatever. Wait, are we allowed to like consider that in the proceeding of this case? Or do we have to like like go separately to decide that's unconstitutional and someone else could like revisit this case? so
00:47:24
Speaker
I don't know. This is all fake. We're not lawyers, so we don't really know. Yeah, Jerry, you probably. You guys, guys can just say this in a previous episode, but it's ah who's going to stop you. Oh, yeah, that's true. I guess the only rules that are here are just the ones that we make up as we go. Right. I'll be honest with you. This this would be going after the state while still keeping us.
00:47:46
Speaker
you know ah that what what I can't think of the word that I want to say. I don't know. Our previous ruling was that the state could do what they want within reason. Right. This thing can't just be out there. A lot of latitude. He's doing shit. A lot of latitude within reason. We come up and we're like, no, this actually doesn't look right. um Pennsylvania, you can't let dogs vote. That's not allowed.
00:48:14
Speaker
Yeah, right. It's is a shit like that. So, you know, our stuff. Sorry. ah But now we're allowed to curse. We're justices. Yeah. Who's going to stop us? here God, I wish you hadn't said that. I really wish you hadn't said that.
00:48:30
Speaker
um So anyway yeah that's where that's where i'm at is i think we should go after the state for being bad alright so it really does come back to what were these drawings how obscene were they can i see them.
00:48:47
Speaker
asking for a friend. Like, do they exist in the case file? I'm going to look this up later. So actually, I can kind of speak to that a little bit. Oh, God. I just want to know how obscene they were, because like that really matters. There were some pornographic books, and then one was a pencil drawing. ah She did it. She made it.
00:49:09
Speaker
By the time the arguments were made in front of the actual Supreme Court, the the book of obscene material like had gone missing. This was seriously into the evidence room. And then when the authorities recovered it, they found only the cover.
00:49:26
Speaker
Oh, my God. Also, having actually listened to the oral arguments, when that information became made known to the court, the Supreme Court of the United States had jokes. I mean, it it is somewhat worth listening to if anybody wants to go. They can't even take the Ohio law seriously. It is very funny.
00:49:54
Speaker
Yeah. Oh my god. Okay. Oh god, I think we know enough guys. Yeah, I we're all on the same page. Okay, so as a team here. Ohio is illegal. Ohio is bad. It's illegal shit. And why do we care if somebody has a pencil drawing of something obscene? It's not hurting anybody.
00:50:18
Speaker
It's in their house. It's part of their private property. It's a Supreme Court case where you have to eat those words.
00:50:29
Speaker
Yeah, well, we'll still see. It exists. It might not be our Supreme Court, but it exists in some Supreme Court. Yeah, no, I got to agree. Let the lady draw her smut and the gamblings, whatever. I sure find, slap her on the wrist for the gambling.
00:50:46
Speaker
But you can't even return her evidence because it's been pilfered one gross page at a time. Everybody is wrong in this. Everyone goes to jail. Everyone goes to horny jail in this case.
00:51:02
Speaker
So bad. Porque no los todos. I think that's new precedent, guys. I think that's new. Yeah, porque no Porque no los todos. Porque no los todos. Everybody's guilty. everyone with this You know what? We're just going to call a ah collective mulligan. Everyone did something wrong here. I'd like to think we all learned something. We all go free. this piac atti I don't know what you said there, but I'm going to agree wholeheartedly. Sorry, everyone.
00:51:30
Speaker
But I just want to clarify, when you say everybody did something wrong. Everybody. We're all since. No, DM's fine. No, DM's good. Yeah, she's cool. Yeah, DM's good. Because I'd just like to point out she was acquitted of the ah gambling stuff, I think. Yeah, let her go. Yeah, see? Right. Let her have her keynote or whatever it is. Come on, you prudes. Let her draw her smut and have her keynote. God, I really want to be friends with DM.
00:51:56
Speaker
Um, and then just for some, uh, clarification. So there was a lot of lack of clarity as to where they found the obscene materials. And part of it also important actually was because, uh, it was, uh, DM's allegation that the materials actually belong to a former male tenant. So there was a male tenant or border who lived there. And then he left, I think he got detained somewhere in another state or, or something. smut He basically she was like, are you going to come back? Are you going to like pay your rent? And he kind of ghosted. ah So she just kind of like packed up his stuff and and put it away. He sent her a dirty drawing that said this is your rent. Imagine going to jail for one to seven years. Yeah. Because some dude
00:52:48
Speaker
left a sick drawing of a naked lady somewhere in your house. Like, so said huh? Dude, yeah, like my college roommate could have sent me to jail for life under those auspices. ah Let's hope your college roommate doesn't hear this. Well, that's true. There is a high probability that that may happen. Um, I,
00:53:11
Speaker
I do. i I really, I think, I think this obscenity law, we need to look at that. It's gotta go. What the hell is going on? Ohio. Yeah. and This law. It's no good. I can agree with that. I think, I mean, at the end of the day, I still stand with my opinion on Wolfie, Colorado, that this is wrong based on that, this none of this evidence should have been allowed anyways, because of the way that the police went about obtaining it. ah But for the sake of honoring the precedents of my own court, I think that the next best step of action here is to go after this silly little Ohio law, because it is silly.
00:53:51
Speaker
And people are going to jail for it. Yeah, right. If we can't prosecute literally everyone else involved in this, we should at least take a hammer to the extent of the law because it's kind of wacky. Or whatever. Wait, what? Just for Ohio? That was what I heard.
00:54:08
Speaker
That too. Sorry, Ohioans. Anyway, I've never actually been, I've driven through Ohio, but like, Jared, you and I stayed there for one night. That was never done an appreciable amount of time though.
00:54:20
Speaker
did We went to a T.J. Friday's. We watched The Simpsons movie in a cheap hotel. That was our Ohio experience. yep That 90-degree turn in Cleveland was okay.
00:54:31
Speaker
since Cincinnati is the home of the U.S.'s largest Oktoberfest celebration. oh you also have the They also have a really good chili there. They look forward to it all year. I did have some. and It was okay. It was good.
00:54:47
Speaker
Okay, so we'll change Ohio's laws, but we won't get rid of Ohio in its entirety. Ohio is legal again. Ohio, you're safe. Escape by on the chili, guys. Yeah, but stop the obscenity law.
00:55:02
Speaker
Yeah. All right, ah court fellow members of my court, ah have I think that we have, what's the word? um Deliberated long enough about this. I feel like we're all on a similar wavelength here. Clerks, I would like to say that we are ready to proceed forward with our decision. We're unanimousized. I'd like to blow the ceremonial unanimousization horn.
00:55:27
Speaker
We're unanimous. We should get one of those. The horn of Perisprudence. Gonna get a real horn for next time. But we're unanimous, folks. Can it be like a gong and still horn? Yeah, it's actually way better. We'll do that next time. Yes.
00:55:43
Speaker
So ah as clerk, allow me to try to summarize. bless you yeah good luck I have no idea what I said. So so so you had so ah it sounds like Sarah is ah the source of the majority opinion on this one and everyone is joining her and sounds right and that the obscenity law is a violation. I'm going to Put it out there that you're probably me at the first amendment. At least. yeah Yeah. I mean, what else would it like? Most of them. Sure. It violates other things. Yeah. like Free. I don't know. Is drawing porn like free speech? Probably.
00:56:29
Speaker
So, uh, so the, the opinion is the law under which DM was tried and convicted is unconstitutional. Therefore her conviction is reversed and the law is struck. We're barely recognizing the authority of Ohio to exist as is. So like, yes, the obscenity law kind of whack. Don't, don't believe in it. Won't abide it.
00:56:55
Speaker
Okay, yeah, the way I had, what I wrote down was by unanimous decision, the Ohio obscenity law is stupid and illegal. Ohio is really legal. Nailed it. Yeah, that's it. You exist by the grace of this court. Follow up. Does the court want to rule on the admissibility of the evidence or does it want to just put that question aside?
00:57:18
Speaker
a Rule of cops dilatory and everything they did, dilatory. Listen guys, I, if, if hypothetically I were to rule on it, I would say that i I don't think that the evidence should be allowed because there was no warrant and because they went about, they went about gaining it in a very silly way with the fake paper. They attempted to deceive, like it was just a very dishonorable operation overall. So that would be my opinion on it. But as a court, do we want to actually rule on it?
00:57:55
Speaker
I think we want to establish a shenanigans cannon here where if law enforcement abrogates their duty and like if if the law... if If the cops have to break the law to enforce the law, what good is the law? What are the good guys anymore? We should implement a three strike rule on the cops. I mean, it would make it two strikes. Two strikes. Two strikes. This is great. We'll change the rules. I think it should be a two strike rule, where in this case, the cops not only broke into the dwelling,
00:58:32
Speaker
but then ah led led the witness on, or not the witness, the defendant, led her on. um And then at this at this point went in and you know forcibly yeah removed the paper back. So I feel like that is enough to say the cops you know were not, um I think the evidence should OK, OK, that's eminently fair. You are allowed to break the law three times. and That's it. buster that's why I like, there's there's you can point out a lot of things wrong with this, but like the surely breaking the breaking and entering is a is a big red flag. Yeah, with no warrant and also no probable cause. Right. Like if we allow this, then we are just
00:59:25
Speaker
uh, abiding squads of thought cops to go about, uh, uh, pre-criming all about the place, you know, just breaking and entering into any sort of shady dwelling to be like, is there any crime going on here? Are you drawing any dicks? What's going on in this living room? Oh, you smoke in the marijuana. Shit, that's legal. You get away this time, kids. But if I catch you drawing dicks, we don't want that future, do we? I don't know.
00:59:56
Speaker
I agree, Chris. I mean, I think just any reasonable person would look at the facts of this case and say, damn, DM did not deserve all of that. And she seems kind of cool to boot. You know, so I think that has I think reason reasonability reason. Is that a word? I'm not a lawyer. ah word I think reason is ah Well, lawyers say reason a lot, right? Like, reasonable doubt? I don't know. Like, a what would a reasonable person think or do? That sounds totally cromulent. Yeah. Very cromulent. The cops were unreasonable in all of their methods, so. So, ah let me amend the summary and make sure that every, yeah, so so this is this is the summary of Sarah's opinion and then Adam and Chris can decide whether they want to join it or have their own side opinions or whatever. Indubitably.
01:00:50
Speaker
is that So firstly, the Ohio law that D.M. was convicted under, tried and convicted for, is unconstitutional and should be struck and therefore the conviction should be reversed and send it back to Ohio. And also... Sentence in and of itself back to Ohio.
01:01:11
Speaker
ah the in recognizing precedent that in the Wolf case, you are amending that precedent to say, okay, that precedent stands, provided the circumstances are at least a little reasonable. Yeah. And we've defined that quite concisely and with no room for error by saying you get three oopsies and then you go to naughty jail.
01:01:41
Speaker
Then also, I liked Adam's use of shenanigans cannon. The shenanigans cannon. You are allowed to commit two acts of shenanigans in your duty as law enforcement officers. The minute you commit a third shenanigan in the course of a single investigation, and God, there's a lot of edge cases we've got to explore here.
01:02:02
Speaker
but i You do three shenanigans. You're out, buddy. You are now hunted. You are part of the criminal element that we are sworn to rescue. Hang on, guys. Do we have to get into the weeds about what constitutes like a normal reasonable shenanigan and like a major horrible shenanigan? like yeah Yes. So follow up question from clerk. Would the Sarah court like to establish a test?
01:02:34
Speaker
your very own test that other courts would need to use to determine whether or not it was reasonable or unreasonable. Or kick it down to a lower court. Or kick it down to a lower court. On a procedural issue and let the states figure it out until it ends up back in front of you guys. Wait, states plural or are we trusting Ohio to decide this? I don't trust Ohio. I don't either. We have to make this canon right now. Okay. We're going to go ahead and say,
01:03:03
Speaker
That a major shenanigans. Involves a bridging your national US constitutional rights doesn't matter if you're in Ohio doesn't matter if you're in. Anybody else's sovereign well it doesn't matter if you're in someone else's sovereign territory if you're in Canada's with. Not important if you get your constitutional rights abridged that's a major shenanigans doesn't matter where you're on the US.
01:03:26
Speaker
If the cops break the same law that they are investigating you for, that's a major Shenanian. If they reach inside your undergarments in any capacity, that's a major Shenanian. That's pretty much all the ones that come to mind. Those are the ones that are canonically established by this case. and I'm sure there are more and we will find them and we will add them to our rich canon.
01:03:53
Speaker
and So this is the Starakort's Shenanigan test. Yes. as ah Did the police violate your constitutional right, even though precedent here says that doesn't matter. But so was your was your constitutional right ah violated?
01:04:18
Speaker
ah
01:04:21
Speaker
does the Did the officers reach into your clothing in any capacity? And a third thing that I have already forgotten. Oh, if the cops break the same law that they're investigating the suspect for. There you go. that really it yeah And so those that's the test. If a f f ah case comes before a lower court, you want them to apply that test and make the decision and leave you alone.
01:04:47
Speaker
Good luck lower courts. And so if the cops conduct a major shenanigans, so like reaching the Constitution, then that evidence is not admitted. Uh, no, no, you gotta, you gotta commit three strikes, three major shenanigans. And then all three, all three parts of the tests are true. Then any evidence, and any hold on both tunnel okay any any three parts of this nice unfinished test, that is very much a work in progress to be clear. but i swear It's the court not to do that. but some of us had Open draft.
01:05:26
Speaker
So if I can prove, so if I'm on trial and I can prove that the police who are, who were, who, you know, gathered evidence against me screwed up in two other previous cases. No, no, no, no, no. In your case. No, no, no, no, no. In your own case. Yeah, yeah. The clock starts the minute they start investigating. So how does the three strikes work? So what three strikes work? If it's a minor shenanigans, maybe?
01:05:53
Speaker
No, no. So, okay. The sum of any. It's exactly right. They have to commit three shenanigans in the course of the single investigation against their target. And in that case- It could be the same shenanigans. Okay, so they could like, they could like, you know, violate your civil rights twice and then grope you. Exactly. And then that would be three. And subject are noodles hitherto undefined by us.
01:06:17
Speaker
Is groping you separate from just violating your civil rights? yeah butly That's a separate right. There is no constitutional amendment that says they can't reach into your pants.
01:06:28
Speaker
The House shall not be groped. Is it your property? I do you think that might be the Fourth Amendment, but... Yeah, I think that's... Who am I to say? I'm just a lowly clerk. None of us have any idea what we're doing here. That's clear. Okay, so what I really want to know now, Jared, is if we all have a are you going to have a spin-off episode with a new set of justices to be the lower court that actually has to rule on this test?
01:06:58
Speaker
we've dug a deep point we've already We've already seen things that you have decided come back and have to factor into new things you must decide. So that's why Nikki and I are trying very hard to make sure that we get this all down very clearly so that whether we bring you a new case or you know some new justices come in or whatnot, we need to be able to fully inform them of the canon.
01:07:22
Speaker
of our universe. So we need to know the test. Guys, we might get fired. Also, ah i I think it's delightful to watch the five of us who have no idea what we're doing try to design a test. You know, I've known you a long time. I'm not even good at my real job. I've known you a long time and I have stepped into every trap you have sprung for us so far.
01:07:49
Speaker
Bravo, my friend. Bravo. This whole law thing is really complicated. This way you got to school for it for so long. I presume, I don't know, having not gone to school for this.
01:08:03
Speaker
I think I think this is as close as we're going to get to resolution, but it sounds like. Wolf still stands just with caveats, but yes.
01:08:18
Speaker
Wolf stands. I would love to strike down Wolf. ah The thing with Wolf is that the there was really, I mean, yes, the cops let themselves in with a key, right? You're thinking of weeks. Oh, I'm thinking of weeks. Wolf was they went to the doctor's office and and like that's took his- It was the HIPAA violation.
01:08:38
Speaker
Yes. Everywhere. That was subject to major shenanigans, but only two, and that's how they got away with it. they were That's true. That's true. There were only two. Yep. Only two of with this court. by I think you did it. I think you solved it. I think you solved it. Really threaded that needle, guys. The Ohio law is unconstitutional.
01:09:00
Speaker
DM should be released and and the Wolf decision is further clarified with the introduction of the Sarah Court's shenanigans test. Yes. Yes. Major shenanigans test.
Majority and Dissenting Opinions in Supreme Court
01:09:14
Speaker
We have to at some point differentiate minor from major, which will theoretically be an entire minor in law school. But um accurate.
01:09:28
Speaker
Wow. guys she Please don't edit out you feverishly typing. yeah I'm taking something like I need to. What's what's happening? Yeah, this is this is jurisprudence. Yeah, the audience needs to know that the notes are diligently being taken. and That's very important.
01:09:49
Speaker
yeah I mean, you can't hear it, but I am ah furiously drawing courtroom sketches. But because this is a podcast that I'm alone in a room, it's pretty uninspiring.
01:10:03
Speaker
We can rent a court, right? Is the Supreme Court in the state ah on Airbnb? Can we we rent it out? Is that not a thing? Should we go camp out in a Capitol building? Yeah, go camp out in the Capitol building. Yeah.
01:10:20
Speaker
My i only regret is that I can't be with every lawyer on earth who ever listens to this to watch and observe the the all the stages of grief pass over their face yeah in just a moment. Yo, I'm just coming around to the fact that you used us as weapons in a literal war crime.
01:10:48
Speaker
Yeah, condolences. ah So sorry to any and law professionals who do take the time to listen to this. I'm actually not so very sorry. I'll do it again and I will do it again. but and but An invitation to law professionals to come on the show and ah learn us a thing or two. I can imagine just angry emails. Jokes on you. 100% without a doubt.
01:11:16
Speaker
get Get in the comments. You hear that? Law subreddit. Get in the comments. Fight. Oh, man. I think we owe everybody some actual history and results here. What actually happened? I forgot about that. yeah I was like, oh, yeah. I was fully ready to apologize to everyone in the state of Ohio, but yeah, continue.
01:11:41
Speaker
Yeah, there was lot of information, partly because um we had access to more information. So it it got pretty interesting. But um anyway, so MAP versus Ohio was argued March 29, 1961, and decided on June 19, 1961, and it was a 6-3 decision in favor of DM.
01:12:07
Speaker
So, woo! Right side of history, again. Good job, court. So ah they, have and this is a direct quote, we hold that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is by that same authority, inadmissible in a state court. Hell yeah. To hold otherwise is to grant the right, but in reality, to withhold its privilege and enjoyment.
01:12:37
Speaker
So, ah they actually just full out ah overturned Wolfie, Colorado in this. Wow. As they should. Wow, your wish is granted, man. Feeling great about this. Yeah, the court viewed this as a protection of the right to privacy and security of person and property.
01:12:59
Speaker
um And basically the reasoning is that the court has a duty to protect citizens' constitutional rights and sort of watch out for government's attempts to violate them. You leave Diem in her nasty little drawings alone.
01:13:14
Speaker
ah And so the the court since the court had previously held that states are bound by the Fourth Amendment right to privacy by way of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, ah they're saying that the state courts also need to exclude illegal evidence the same way that federal courts do. Otherwise, there's no real protection against illegal search and seizure.
01:13:36
Speaker
um They also pointed out that, um you know, in prior cases, the court has very readily um enforced against states ah the rights of free speech, the rights of of a free press, the rights to notice in a fair public trial, the right and to not be convicted by use of a coerced confession. confession um So basically they were like, well, we've already ruled against the states and told them that they have to respect these. right So like, it's really not that much difference.
01:14:04
Speaker
um in this situation. um And then they said that the consistency between state and federal rules will basically allow for cooperation and investigation and prosecution of crimes, quote, if only by recognition of their now mutual obligation to respect the same fundamental criteria in their approaches.
01:14:27
Speaker
um And then regarding the whole issue of um you know what happened, you know the person accused, you know they go free, ah they quoted a prior case in saying, however much in a particular case, insistence upon such rules may appear as a technicality that inures to the benefit of a guilty person. The history of the criminal law proves that tolerance of shortcut methods in law enforcement impairs its enduring effectiveness. So basically, ah some guilty people will go free, but on the whole, it's it's protecting judicial integrity and and constitutional restraints. If you um keep breaking into ladies houses, reaching in their blouses and stealing their dirty drawings, no one's going to believe in the dang legal system anymore. Please, you got to do your job. Yeah, basically. Yeah, yeah. It's a good way to ruin credibility.
01:15:18
Speaker
Yeah, exactly. ah So the Supreme Court of Ohio judgment was reversed and the case was sent back so that Ohio could do it again, but right this time. so Second chances for Ohio. Mulligan canon. That's new. o I didn't know that was possible.
01:15:35
Speaker
The way we can just be like, you guys got to do it again. You screwed up the first time. Well, you have to do it again. To a lower court. To these parameters that we have set. To a lower court, we can just be like, you guys are amateurs. You got to do it again, but under these rules, these are the rules. Follow them. That's why you jokers aren't on the Supreme Court. You got to follow these rules.
01:15:56
Speaker
Okay, okay, that's good. That's good to know the full extent of our powers and the fact that nobody can truly stop us from doing whatever we want. That's also really important to know.
01:16:09
Speaker
It's the powdered wigs, you know? It's the powdered wig. It's really, I can't take it off. Really sinking in. I can't take it off. Really sinking in. So, okay, we learned a lot today. We learned that we can rule into higher state laws unconstitutional. That's incredible. As long as it is, you know, assumedly unconstitutional, that's probably important to mention. um And the shenanigans clause, that's like critical, like,
01:16:38
Speaker
You screw up three times, you're out cops. Yeah, this is- Yeah, we're not messing around. We're not messing around. We're serious about this jurisprudence thing. That's some excellent jurisprudence. Thank you, my friend. Shenanigans will not be tolerated. At least more than two times. Right.
01:16:57
Speaker
ah ah Before I get into some of the dissents on this, because it was not unanimous, ah my favorite quote from the majority opinion, and this is a bit of a long one, but I think it really sort of gets to the heart of the matter of what we've been talking about over these past three cases, is a quote.
01:17:16
Speaker
Moreover, our holding that the exclusionary rule is an essential part of both the 4th and 14th Amendments is not only the logical dictate of prior cases, but it is but it also makes very good sense. There is no war between the Constitution and common sense.
01:17:33
Speaker
Presently, a federal prosecutor may make no use of evidence illegally seized, but a state's attorney across the street may, although he supposedly is opening is operating under the enforceable prohibitions of the same amendment. Thus, the state, by admitting evidence unlawfully seized, serves to encourage disobedience to the federal constitution, which it is bound to uphold.
01:17:58
Speaker
That's what I've been saying. Ooh, that's an interesting angle. By upholding the state law, you are abrogating your responsibility to the national constitution. I didn't realize that was an angle we could play. Thank you dissenters. Oh no, that was the, sorry, that was from the majority opinion. oh yeah me Excuse me, yes, majority, excuse me, majority, yes. I forgot, we were we were on the right side of history at this time, yes.
01:18:26
Speaker
Right. That's what I was kind of trying to go at because like when I was saying, you know, the the law is unconstitutional. It's like Ohio is enforcing a law on a person that is depriving them of their liberty. Right. You know, because of the conviction. So it's like why, you know, but that's it's interesting to like actually view it from from that angle where you're now we're comparing. Mm hmm. Well said. Well said.
01:19:06
Speaker
Let's see, for the dissension, so this is Justices Harlan, Frank Footer, and Whitaker, it should be noted at least Frank Footer was on the court when Wolf was decided. I wouldn't be surprised if maybe some of these other fours, but Frank Footer actually wrote the Wolf majority opinion. Oh, fingers. This guy, all right. ah They were very displeased that the majority opinion was even about Wolf because the case that came before them was actually about the constitutionality of the the obscene materials law in Ohio. We did sort of skirt that a little bit in our
01:19:55
Speaker
reading of the facts of the case because we were trying to keep things a little bit narrow for you all to just sort of yeah stay at stake sort of in the, in the lane of this little bit of this little series here. We need guardrails. Yeah. Well, to be fair, you, you all, uh, and props, especially to Chris, who, who was the first to sort of look at it and be like, well, hold on, i wait a minute. But before we talk about Wolf, like this law is pretty bad.
01:20:21
Speaker
Any the backbone of this whole operation also having like looked over the the transcripts of the oral arguments and also listen to portions of them um It seemed to me that the court thought it was kind of a bullshit law because there was a lot of discussion like a lot ah like I had the right spirit when I asked just how dirty was the drawing Yeah, you were you were getting there Did it actually you rise to the standard of obscenity as I hold it, which is considerably higher than the average person I have to assume? There were some some questions about, you know because there was a lot of disagreement about, oh, it was in the dresser. No, it was in the trunk. It was in a room. It was in the basement. um and Then the court asked a lot of clarifying questions. and Then once it was established that it's just having it just
01:21:09
Speaker
in in your possession kind of broadly, like in the house somewhere. Your honor, I swear on my life, this house was overflowing with smut. um Then they were like, well, it doesn't matter specifically where the police found it, but like there then there were a lot of questions about like, okay, so if I have it on my shelf, is that illegal even if I'm a hoarder and I don't show it to anybody? And the prosecutor was like, yes. And then he's like, okay, well then what if you had,
01:21:37
Speaker
ah but I'm not going to give the precise title, but what if it was at the library? I don't want everybody running off to the library. But what if it was at like a university library? Is that illegal? And who specifically gets in trouble? There was a lot of like, very targeted focus questions to the state of Ohio about um this law with sort of this undertone of like this is kind of bullshit. It does seem valid that if you're going to be like some drawings are dirty and therefore legal, you're inviting a slippery slope of inquiry into you know just how dirty does it have to be really before we go and throw this lady in jail. Yeah, who gets who gets to say it's obscene? And they also talked a lot about this idea of like the Ohio Ohio State ah prosecutor argued
01:22:25
Speaker
that according to the law, there there's just the fact that she had it, that it was within ah her property means she was in possession of it and it's the possession that's illegal. And the justices, including Frankfurter, I think he was one of the the hardest chargers who was sort of going through the whole like, so like somebody comes over my house and just like put something in a drawer and now I'm breaking the law.
01:22:55
Speaker
And that's ah that's also part of why when ah it came out that the ah the book was like missing, um the first question was, oh, well, was the clerk indicted?
01:23:08
Speaker
Hmm. Hmm. yeah I mean, there was a lot of laughter. I mean, it was a joke, but like there was a lot of like there there were lot of laughter during the ah arguments, I will say. find the men who tore these dirty drawings out of this hardc cover we will chase them to the ends of the earth and prosecute them in ohio state courts Yeah. get So for Harlan, Frank Footer and Whitaker, they went into this thinking like, this is a we're talking about a First Amendment case of like freedom of expression and and you know you can possess whatever you want to possess yeah within reason.
01:23:44
Speaker
and But I think there is also a lot of questions of like the the court has ruled before that ah a state has the ability at some level to police things like obscenities or or whatever. um Anything that could be bad for you know proper societal cohesion and you know that kind of stuff.
01:24:04
Speaker
But a lot of their dissent basically is just, wait, wait way wait wait what is the majority even talking about? the Why are we talking about Wolf? this was a This was an obscenity law case and then an ACLU lawyer showed up and and had like a one thing one line where he was like, oh, by the way, I think you guys should overturn Wolf while you're here. And then that, that was it. That was what the case ended up being. And so they're, they're trying to do two things in their dissent where they were there this grievance of like, what, what, wait a minute, why, why are we talking about Wolf? That's not the issue at hand. It's the, this Ohio law that's the problem. Uh, and then,
01:24:48
Speaker
and then attacking the actual decision on Wolff, the upsetting of precedent, they say. To all in intents and purposes, the court's present action amounts to a summary reversal of Wolff without argument. Our concern here, as it was in Wolff, is not with the desirability of that rule, but only with the question whether the states are constitutionally free to follow it or not, as they may themselves determine,
01:25:13
Speaker
And the relevance of the disparity of views among the states on this point lies simply in the fact that the judgment involved is a debatable one They may say the question remains as it always has been, one of state power, not one of passing judgment on the wisdom of one state course or another. In my view, this court should continue to forbear from fettering the states with any adamant rule, which may embarrass them in coping with their own peculiar problems in criminal law enforcement. So the dissent is very is very much going for the wolf was right, because this is a,
01:25:51
Speaker
The states get to decide issue and you took a case that was not about wolf and you decided to make it a case about wolf and, you know, respectfully go to hell. That's a lot of words to say that states are allowed to be as garbage as they want to be.
Challenges and Evolution of Legal Precedents
01:26:08
Speaker
And, and to be fair, like DM's lawyer didn't even like reference Wolf in his like written materials. Like he was asked about it during oral arguments and he tried to like, rile them up he he was just like, Oh, I didn't, I didn't mention Wolf. And then Frankfurter was like, yeah, but Wolf though, right? And he was like, well, I mean, sure, but see you now you're jurisprudence i guess but also first amendment and also cruel and unusual punishment. And then the ACLU lawyer was like,
01:26:37
Speaker
ah Yeah, overturn Wolf and overturn this other thing and also do this other thing to the point that one of the justices was like, you're asking a lot of us today. And he was all like, objection. And the judges were all like, no way. And he was all like, way. And everybody clapped in the galley. Apparently.
01:26:57
Speaker
ah So to take a step back, put the case in context, right? So the thing I think about a lot when I'm sort of reading, because Nikki and I have to read a lot of Supreme Court related things to prep for this and to pick which cases are interesting to do, and we're not lawyers, so we're- And also try to understand all this stuff? Yeah. So so we got to go through a lot of things to decide like, well, what cases are we going to choose? And this was this case was originally episode two.
01:27:28
Speaker
and When we were researching it and we were talking to each other, we realized that we couldn't really talk about this case. The reason we want to talk about this case is because when you think about it nowadays, watch like any copy tea program, right? And there's always going to be the sort of like loose cannon cop who wants to get in there and do something and then the comma cop who's like, no, we got to get a search warrant, you know, or they're not going to let it be evidence. Like we live in a society where like that has been the rule for 50 some odd years now. At least as long as law and order has been on TV. Yeah. Right. It feels like about that long. But but the but ah so the reason we want to do this case is because I think we get sort of complacent when you grow up with the system and
01:28:17
Speaker
or a rule like this and it hasn't changed in your lifetime you kind of think that like but it's always been that way and the reality is like no it wasn't and we want to talk about the case that made it so but as we got into it we we're like well we have to we have to introduce wolf and we got in and that case was complicated.
01:28:35
Speaker
And so we're like, well, let's just do wolf. So then we started researching wolf and we were like, well, wolf is a response to, or a clarification of the weeks via United States case. So what we started out as one episode became a three, this sort of three part series, this, this groundhogs day of search, illegal search and seizure that we put you through. What a trilogy folks. Because the progression,
01:29:03
Speaker
for me is the so what and and the changing of norms over time for two reasons. Number one, I just personally find it to be very interesting, especially I think I said it in the weeks episode where it was like, okay, 1911, the federal courts finally decide, you know what, if the police grew up in gathering evidence, it's not allowed in federal court, which means from, you know, 1790, whatever to 1911,
01:29:33
Speaker
that wasn't the rule. And then, so we got so we got one one new right that we didn't have before, but only in federal court. And then Wolf comes along and you think, oh, okay, finally we're gonna get a chance to do it on the state level. And they say, nah, it's cool. and And to be fair, the arguments swayed you guys, two thirds of you, just like it did the actual court.
01:30:03
Speaker
Then we come back with with Map v. Ohio and it's basically the same case, but what's happened is there's been, was it 15 years or so? It was like 1940 something to 1961.
01:30:17
Speaker
So it's been 10 to 15 years, new justices on the court, a society that maybe has gotten a little less happy about the way ah the police have been operating,
01:30:34
Speaker
Yeah, we can't discount the latest scientific breakthroughs and the understandings of the nature of shenanigans as well. Sure. Yes. And then also there were there were other cases right that were brought before the same court. like There kept being cases of like, oh, the police are doing this, this, and this.
01:30:50
Speaker
Yes. Yeah. Yeah. There are, there's a really, really great law article that I don't, unfortunately I don't have it on my notes for this episode. I mentioned it in a previous episode that just goes basically from the week's decision through just the Wolf decision and a little bit after and just talks about like all the cases where the, all of the various courts from state courts to federal courses, the Supreme court had to like keep uh, come making decisions on like exceptions or slightly different circumstances and how that started to get more and more untenable where it's like, well, in this situation, this, unless it's like that, but you know, in this like flow chart of ideas that, all right, boys, you can still break in and seize evidence unconstitutionally, but only on the full moon or Sundays. Right.
01:31:45
Speaker
But only if you have an odd number of men in your party. An odd number of people and a Catholic to oversee everything. If anyone in your party is named Greg, you're done. Right. So by the time we get to MAP,
01:32:03
Speaker
You know, this is, it felt very much as to me, I mentioned this to Nikki earlier that, and I really want to talk to ah some legal scholar who can answer this question to me. So if you're a legal scholar out there and you want to answer this question, reach out. But I sometimes wonder,
01:32:20
Speaker
Did the did the the judges, the justices on the court who decided to hear this case know that it was an opportunity to rule even though the question they were being asked was really more about Ohio's law? I'm sure it was in the back of their mind, right? I'm sure it was. Yeah, I would guess so. just Just given just the three justices' reaction once we started going into the facts of the case,
01:32:50
Speaker
and just the like, Oh, come on. Yeah. Yeah. And we, now we live in a society where a lot of what we thought was settled to precedent is potentially going to be reevaluated. And that is a very scary thing. But at the same time, I guess,
01:33:15
Speaker
the any positive I can take away from this experience going through these cases is that things have been in flux for a very long time. And at least in this particular case, it certainly seems like things trended in the direction of providing us with more rights now than we had in 1910. For some reason, I'm feeling hopeful.
01:33:45
Speaker
Yeah. Maybe. Yeah, this was 65 years ago. Yeah, thereabouts. Progress is slow. ah But the other thing too is who's on the court matters and, you know, we need to pay attention. Which is why are you need to keep listening to podcasts like this one and stay informed.
01:34:14
Speaker
Yeah, we we realize how ah completely thoroughly soul exhausting it is to be informed, but ah someone's got to do it. It can't just be us because we're clearly not doing a great job. Yeah. You got to have good jurisprudence. so Yeah, that is the one thing I do know. Yes. indeed Keep your wigs powdered, people. Keep them powdered. That's what we say. Thank you. Thank you for ah for indulging us on this three part journey. Oh, yeah. Genuinely thought.
01:34:44
Speaker
I mean, we got a little bit of it when we started going through the the facts of the case, but I genuinely thought that there there would be a a riot or a mass walkout.
01:34:57
Speaker
It's good to know you guys will take a lot a lot of abuse. Listen, it was really hard for me to stay seated when the facts of this case once again opened up with, and by the way, no warrant.
01:35:14
Speaker
It just seems obvious. Yeah, I've been taking copious doses of medicinal ether to get through the arduous details of this case, as is my right as a Supreme Court justice. I really hope you guys bring more suitable bribes next time, though. The offerings have been less insufficient. Aren't you sponsored? You're the one that's sponsored, right? We could find the obscene materials, make it available to the court for review. Oh, God.
01:35:42
Speaker
Let's do it. We got to put something on the website. So, lets yeah, let's do it. Fair enough. We litigated.com. send your favorite representation of what you think the nasty business was DM was drawing under spare time. I have to read these. I'm going to shut that down.
01:36:00
Speaker
I will be the one reading the emails. Please no emails with, uh, Jared at relitigated.com.
DM's Case Specifics and Final Thoughts
01:36:09
Speaker
Please send your nastiest DM fan art. I don't, I can't, I can't right now express to you what I would consider to be obscene, but I would know it when I saw it. You're going to learn son, you're going to learn.
01:36:25
Speaker
Oh wait, a random ah random fact. This is from Wikipedia. ah so Apparently, DM was involved with the legal gambling operations that were run by like organized crime in Cleveland. She got away with it. She was acquitted, but then like the second prosecution a year later,
01:36:46
Speaker
Coincidentally, I guess, happened to occur after she refused to testify against the racketeer running the illegal gambling. Gosh, she's so cool. I ain't no snitch. Yeah, good for DM. I think. Too cool for school. I think she eventually moved to New York and then down to the South. As you do. Yeah, I mean, get out of Ohio at least. What a go-getter, man.
01:37:16
Speaker
You should start an illegal lottery. Back to that again, too. Yeah. i I do think I am a little concerned that we may have incepted the idea of running an illegal gambling operation into Adam's head.
01:37:33
Speaker
yeah
01:37:37
Speaker
And that I And we we may want to huddle up after this is done and disabuse him of the idea that that would be a good idea. as in you If you run illegal gambling motion operations, the police are just going to bust into your house without a warrant. Yeah, that would be considered a major shenanigans, I would think. I've been trained to know that's bad, yeah.
01:37:59
Speaker
Um, listen guys, the the line between legality and the illegality is simply about what kind of lobbying effort you can muster. So I'm just saying this is the first step on a long road.
01:38:13
Speaker
Uh, I think this is a good place to wrap it up before we, uh, commit another major shenanigans. Yes, yeah exactly. Yes. Before we ah abrogate our own shenanigans. We got to land this plane somewhere. I really hope we're going to get into a season of dog law next.
01:38:38
Speaker
Well, ah that was a map versus Ohio. And that concludes a three part discussion of the Fourth Amendment. and the ways in which police can and can't bust up in your house without a warrant. um The real life conclusion is that police you know need a warrant. ah The Sarah Court has ah established a major shenanigans test to establish whether evidence should be included or not.
01:39:08
Speaker
and and have established some ah other doctrines as well, the porque no los dos. and And I feel like there's another one that i've I forgot. Todos as well. Porque no los todos. Todos, yes. Everybody goes to jail. Everyone is guilty. And also no snitching, I think, seems to be ah it's a common theme. yeah Snitches do get stitches, unfortunately. Yeah, this court thinks very, very poorly of snitches.
01:39:36
Speaker
So ah that's been the ruling of the of the Sarah court. So get in line, people.
01:39:45
Speaker
And so with that, ah thank you very much. Thank you to our justices. And just checking, is anybody here a lawyer? No. Never have, and I probably never have. Yeah, no, absolutely not. ah Wonderful. Well, thank you, everybody, and have a good night.
01:40:06
Speaker
That's it for this episode. To recap, in session, the justices declared the Ohio obscenity law is stupid and illegal, overturned the conviction of DM, and clarified the Wolf decision by adding the shenanigans test.
01:40:24
Speaker
Aside from the shenanigans test, their reversal of the conviction actually somewhat matches the real Supreme Court's ruling in that in a 6-3 decision, the court overturned Wolf v. Colorado.
01:40:39
Speaker
Before we go, thanks again to my co-host and to our justices. The music in this episode was written by Studio Columna and Toby Smith and provided by Pixabay. Audio mixing and producing was done by Jared. Thanks for listening. Please like and subscribe and catch us at relitigated.com. Until then, I'm Nikki, and this has been Relitigated. Bye.