Mapp v. Ohio: Guarding Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures, and: A Place of Recourse: A History of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, 1803-2003 (review)

Carolyn Long skillfully traces the judicial path of Cleveland's Dollree Mapp's case from police intrusion into her home without a warrant to the United States Supreme Court's declaration of her freedom and an exclusionary rule for illegally obtained evidence. Roberta Sue Alexander masterfully details the impact of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, provides biographies of its judges, and analyzes its impact on Ohio and the nation. Both books significantly advance our knowledge of American constitutional and legal history, provide historiographically nuanced interpretations of law's impact, and furnish readers with easy access to the complex nature of judicial process.

The federal District Court for the Southern District of Ohio opened for legal business in 1803 to aff ord litigants a place to enforce federal law and assert rights under the United States Constitution. The federal district judges brought federal law home to the people of southern Ohio. These judges handled nationally significant cases such as Osborn v. Bank of the United States (1824), part of the Jacksonian war against the national bank using state taxing authority to destroy the institution. Admiralty was another important part of the court's litigation calendar. Deciding disputes on the inland waterways of Ohio was important for the commerce of Ohio and the nation. Ex parte Vallandigham, a Civil War–era case of treason, also had its origins in the district. Later in the century, Judge George R. Sage was the first in 1891 to issue a labor injunction against a union boycott starting a national trend that lasted until the New Deal. In 1913 the court made national headlines sentencing the president of National Cash Register to jail time for illegal business practices under the Sherman Act. Prohibition flooded the court with enforcement cases and the New Deal litigants forced the judges to deal with statutory interpretation and administrative law problems. The judges consistently upheld New Deal statutes and administrative agency intervention in the economy. By the 1960s the court was very much a part of the lives of average residents of the district. The judges made rulings on school desegregation, civil rights, and federal regulation of the economy including equal employment opportunity. The court was an arbiter, interpreter, and innovator in statutory interpretation, mass tort litigation, products liability, and settlement procedures. In 1985 the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio was the busiest federal court in the nation.

Alexander goes beyond narrative by providing strong historical context for each period of time considered, rich biographies of each judge, pointed explanations of the varying jurisprudential approaches of the judges, and numerous tables setting out the criminal and civil dockets. She also marks nationally significant decisions. Judge John E. Stater in United States v. Borkowski (1920) established the constitutionally required elements of a search warrant. Judge John Weld Peck in United States v. Slusser (1921) set out the nature and extent of a consent search. Both established precedent.

The problem for Dollree Mapp was that the Cleveland police did not have a warrant, and she never consented to a search. The police forcibly broke into her home over her protests, ransacked the premises, and found allegedly obscene materials. They arrested her and refused to show her or her lawyer on the premises a warrant required by the Ohio constitution. Yet the Cleveland police were little different from police in half of the states. Regardless of state law or constitutions, police searched without warrants, and, as in Ohio, illegally seized evidence could be admitted into evidence in...