Book Review: Long, C. N. (2006). Mapp v. Ohio: Guarding Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. ix, 228 pp

• Published date: 01 June 2009
• Date: 01 June 2009
• Author: Teresa I. Francis
• DOI: 10.1177/0734016808328776
• Subject Matter: Articles

278 Criminal Justice Review

Wilson next discusses public opinion, the various interest groups involved in lobbying

and policy making, and the coverage of guns and gun control in the media. In general, the

majority of Americans favor “reasonable” or “common-sense” gun-control regulations;

however, Wilson points out that there are problems with existing polls on this issue (e.g.,

operationalizing variables like “assault weapon” or respondents and pollsters’ unfamiliarity

with both guns and existing laws). Moreover, he questions the wisdom and fairness of rely-

ing on the opinion of people who do not own guns and have little to no familiarity with

them, for a political “mandate” to enact new regulations.

When examining the role and tenor of the mass media in the gun debate, Wilson observes

that less than half of all Americans own guns and those who do not have a day-to-day famil-

iarity with guns “must look to other sources for their information (and) the news would be a

logical source” (p. 245). Wilson concludes that studies tend to show that most news stories

regarding guns and gun control are neutral; however, the stories favoring the gun-control

stance outnumber those that favor gun rights. In addition, Wilson offers—admittedly

unscientific—evidence of differential treatment of the gun issue in the news media: gun

rights groups consistently lodge complaints of an antigun bias in the media while the pro-

control groups are essentially silent on the topic of bias.

Wilson concludes his book with an in-depth analysis of gun policy and politics in his

home state of Virginia and a summary of the overall political battle. In addition, he provides

suggestions about how to more rationally and effectively address the problems associated

with guns while protecting the rights of gun owners. For example, Wilson says we need to

move beyond the “‘garbage can model’ of policy making” (p. 245). In this model, a trigger

event like a high-profile shooting leads to calls for policy change, and “solutions” (which

often would have done nothing to alter the trigger event) are hastily proffered and imple-

mented. Wilson counters that what Americans deserve from our political leaders and policy

makers is an objective and honest accounting of the potential benefits (i.e., reduced vio-

lence or keeping guns out of the hands of criminals) balanced against the potential costs

(i.e., the burdens or infringements on the rights of law-abiding gun owners) when designing

and implementing future gun policy.

Eric Primm

Pikeville College

Long, C. N. (2006). Mapp v. Ohio: Guarding Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures.

Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. ix, 228 pp.

DOI: 10.1177/0734016808328776

On June 19, 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Mapp v. Ohio. The court set forth,

for the first time, that the exclusionary rule would now apply to states. The ruling meant

that illegally obtained evidence must be excluded from a criminal trial. The decision was

groundbreaking. Mapp v. Ohio would force politicians and the superior court to further

define the role of the Constitution in criminal procedure.