Skip to main content

tv   Key Capitol Hill Hearings  CSPAN  May 8, 2014 8:00am-10:01am EDT

8:00 am
we should make progress on what we can make progress on starting with these 27 clinics. veterans have been dying around the country because of these ridiculous waits and the fraud and abuse involved in hiding these weights. these 27 committee based clinics will directly help veterans are waiting months and months in some cases, waiting for medical treatment. it will directly alleviate that issue in the communities where these clinics will be located, 18 states, a significant number of communities or significant number of states. .. rest. last november senator sanders seemed to agree with that principle, and tha and that wayg forward, talking about another veterans affairs piece of
8:01 am
legislation. he said on november 19 of last year, "i'm happy to tell you that i think that was a concern of his" -- talking about another of our colleagues. "we got that u.c. 's last night" -- unanimous consent. "so we moved that pretty quickly, and i want to try to do those things. where we have agreement, let's move it." quote -- i want to try to do those things where we have agreement, let's move it." >> we have agreement, let's move i, closed quote. that's all i'm asking for. we're not going to agree on everything immediately. but we can agree on important things right today, right this hour, right this minute. we do agree on 27 important community-based clinics in 18 states around the country including two in louisiana, lafayette and lake charles, louisiana, that senator landrieu and i represent.
8:02 am
so i want to try i to do those things where we have agreement, let's move it. and that can start right this minute in a productive, positive way with these 27 community-based clinics around the country. so let's agree on what we can agree on. let's move on this important clinic issue. leaders of national groups -- american legion, american vets, dav, paralyzed veterans of america, others -- think the same thing. that's why they wrote a letter june 10th of last year, june 10th of 2013 saying these community-based clinics are important. let's come together, work together and move specifically on these community-based clinics. they're important. and, madam president, i ask unanimous consent to submit this letter for the record.
8:03 am
>> without objection to. >> so they agree with what senator sanders said last year, they agree with what i'm saying today. let's come together and move on those things we can degree on, and they specifically wrote the senate leadership about these community-based clinics. and so, madam president, that leads to my unanimous consent which is to adopt this spirit of agreeing where we agree, getting things accomplished whenever, wherever we can and continuing to work on the rest. and so i ask unanimous consent that the veterans affairs committee be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 3521 and the smat proceed to -- the senate proceed to its immediate consideration, that my amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to, that the bill as amended be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. >> is there objection?
8:04 am
>> reserving the right to object. >> the senator from vermont. >> mr. president, let me touch on a few points with my distinguished colleague from louisiana. first of all, regarding the allegations against the va in phoenix, as you know these are very, very serious allegations, and it is absolutely appropriate that the inspector general do a thorough and independent investigation of those allegations, as i'm sure my colleague from louisiana knows, the leadership at phoenix has rejected those allegations, they that they're not true. the secretary of va has done what i believe and i would hope
8:05 am
my friend from louisiana believes is the right thing to do, and that is do an independent investigation. i'm not a lawyer, but i did learn enough in school to know that you don't find somebody guilty without assessing the evidence. and, frankly, just because cnn says something doesn't always make it the case. so what we need is a serious, independent investigation in the very serious allegations about phoenix and any other facility within the va. and what i have said is that i will hold hearings immediately, more than one hearing, if necessary, to get to the truth of the matter regarding the va situation in phoenix. what i would also tell my friend
8:06 am
is when we talk about va, when we talk about health care in general, i'm sure that he would agree with me that as a nation we have a whole hot of serious -- a whole lot of serious problems, don't we? we've got 30 million people today who have no health insurance at all. harvard university estimated about 45,000 people die each year because they don't get to a doctor when they should because we're the only country in the industrialized world doesn't guarantee health care to all people. there was a study that came out recently that indicates that some 200-400,000 patients a year, madam president, die in hospitals in america because of
8:07 am
medical err orrs -- errors in ways that could have been prevented. 2-400,000. that's a thousand people a day. so, yes, as chairman of the senate veterans committee i'm going to do everything that we can with my colleaguing in a bipartisan way to make sure that the veterans of this country get all of the health care they need and get it in the best, with the best quality that they can. it is a very serious issue, independent investigation taking place in phoenix. we're going to get to the truth of that. as i'm sure my colleague when we talk about the va, as i'm sure my colleague from louisiana knows that in fiscal year 2013 the va provided 89.7 million outpatient visits, that the va has 236,000 health care
8:08 am
appointments every single day. today over 200,000 veterans in 151 medical centers in 900 community-based outreach clinics all over this country are walking into the va to get health care. and i will assure my colleague from louisiana that every single day there are problems within the va. when you have over 200,000 people walking in, there are going to be problems. but i will also assure my friend that there are problems in every other medical facility in america today. as well. and i just mentioned the very frightening situation that according to a very significant study we are losing between $2-$400,000 from preventable deaths because of hospital errors all over america. so my point about saying that is to say let's put va within a broader context.
8:09 am
you want to criticize the va? fine. i'm there with you. you got problems? i will work with you. but let's not paint a broad brush. the va has 151 medical centers, has 300,000-plus employees, many of them veterans themselves. and in my view and in the view of the veterans' community, the veterans association and va, veterans administration is providing high quality care for the veterans across this country. it's not just me. my colleague from from louisiana may have recently read that an independent customer service survey done by the america custom satisfaction index, these are people who assess how people feel about medical facilities around the country, and they found that in 2013 overall satisfaction ratings for the va was 84% for in-patient care and
8:10 am
82% for outpatient care which, in some respects, was higher than the hospital industry in general. for the past ten years, the american consumer satisfaction index has found a high degree of loyalty to va among veterans of over 90% that i would suspect that my colleague from louisiana when he talks to veterans in louisiana and he says to them, as i'm sure he does, what do you think about va health care? well, i can tell you that in vermont what veterans say, what? it's pretty good health care. is it perfect? no. are there problems? yes. in general, they think it is pretty good health care. >> [inaudible] >> the senator, the senator will state his inquiry. >> i have a pending unanimous consent request, and i'd like to inquire how i proceed to have a ruling on that and, hopefully, have it passed through the
8:11 am
senate? >> [inaudible] >> is there objection to the request from the senator from louisiana? >> well, what i'm going to do, madam chair, is i am going to object, and i'm going to ask for a unanimous consent on legislation that i have offered. i want to say a word about that. and i want to ask my friend from louisiana, my colleague from louisiana has indicated that he wants to work with us. i think i heard that in his statement today. i applaud that. i'm not quite sure that he has done that yet, but i look forward to him -- [inaudible] and i would invite my colleague from louisiana to come to my office at a mutually-convenient time to see how, in fact, we can work together. will my colleague from louisiana take me up on that offer? >> i have, and i will -- reclaiming my time, reclaiming the floor since my unanimous consent -- >> i ask, madam chair, i just asked a brief question from my
8:12 am
friend from louisiana. >> madam president, a point of parliamentary inquiry. i had a -- >> the senator will state his parliamentary inquiry. >> my inquiry is this: i had a unanimous consent request. it has been objected to. may i reclaim the floor and reclaim my time, and in doing so, i'll be happy to respond to the senator. [inaudible conversations] >> the request has not yet formally been objected to. >> okay. well, i would again ask unanimous consent that the veterans affairs be discharged from further consideration of h.r.3521, that my amendment be agreed to, that the bill as amended be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. >> is there objection? >> i do object, and i'm going to ask -- >> objection is heard --
8:13 am
[inaudible conversations] >> madam president, if i may reclaim the floor and reclaim my time, i'd like to respond to that. i think that's really unfortunate. as we've all agreed to today and in previous appearances on the floor, there's absolutely no objection on the merits of this proposal. the only objection from the distinguished senator from vermont is that a far larger bill which does have significant opposition around 44 members, almost half of the senate, people have concerns about that. so if he can't play the game exactly his way, he's going to take his ball and go home, and he's going to block 27 community-based clinics on which there is no substantive objection, on which the leaders of national veterans organizations have pleaded with members of the senate and house to act on in a bipartisan way.
8:14 am
i'm particularly concerned that today what i hear is an even higher bar that we're going to have to meet to act on these clinics that are not objected to on their merits. previously, the senator from vermont talked about his far broader bill. today he talked about all of health care. apparently, i'm going to have to agree with senator sanders about all of health care reform before we can move forward on these 27 community-based clinics on which there is no substantive objection. the senator from vermont said he'll do everything he can to deal with these issues. well, we can do something right here, right now to deal with these issues. it's not solving every problem in the world, it's not solving every problem in health care, it's not solving every problem in the va, but it's doing something real and meaningful and substantial in 27
8:15 am
communities in 18 states. we can move forward with these community-based clinics. we can try to do those things where we have agreement, let's move it. we can do that. that's all i'm asking. and i think it's really counterproductive to take this view that until we agree about all of the v or a or about -- the va or about all of health care or whatever, we're not going to do any of that. i think that's really sad and counterproductive. i'll keep coming to the floor, i'll keep working on this vital issue, i'll keep working on other vital issues, i'll keep talking to the senator from vermont about his broader bill. but i have to say these scandals in phoenix and elsewhere don't alleviate my concerns, they only heighten my concerns about a broader bill that's going to push many more patients overnight into a system that is obviously broken. and so i'll continue talking and working about all of that. i'll continue working on the
8:16 am
bipartisan working group on the va backlog. but let's do what we can do now. let's start with one ten and then two and then five, and then maybe we can start to jog, and we can start to run. i think that'sv÷qm productive path forward, and i would urge my colleague to reconsider and let us move forward with these important clinics. >> madam president? >> the senator from vermont. >> unfortunately, i didn't quite hear or that the senator from actually wanted to work with usç so i will have my office call his office up and see if we can sit down with our staffs and find out what the senator's concerns are about legislation, it's not bernie sanders' legislation, it's not the veterans committee association, it is legislation supported by
8:17 am
the disabled veterans, the veterans of foreign wars, the vietnam veterans of america, virtually every other veterans organization in america. and in preparation for the discussion that i look forward to having with my colleague from louisiana, this is not changing the world. this is not legislation that's going solve every problem in the world. what it does -- but it does do a whole lot to improve lives when millions of veterans and their families who are hurting. and i think it is appropriate that, in fact, we do that. and let me just list, and i want my colleague to be thinking about these issues, to come into the office and tell me, no, senator sanders, i disagree. does he disagree with the full cola for military retirees? as he knows for new people coming in, they're going to get less of a cola than veteran, longstanding members of the
8:18 am
military. maybe he disagrees, maybe he doesn't. let's talk about it. does he believe that the veterans committee, people who go into the va, should be entitled to dental care? i don't know about louisiana, but i can tell you that in vermont that is a very, very serious issue. all over this country veterans are dealing with rotting teeth. they can't get that care in va facilities right now. there is widespread support for advanced appropriations for the va. i think virtually all of the veterans organizations understand that the va could to a better job if they had advanced appropriations. i support it, many people support it. i don't know if my colleague from louisiana supports it or not. let's work together, i'll find out. and the next time we come down the floor, we go through this exercise, we can tell the people what we agree with and what we don't agree with. ending the benefits backlog. the truth is that the current va administration, general shinseki and others, inherited a --
8:19 am
[inaudible] system. can you believe that in 2009 the va benefits system was on paper? maybe the last remaining system of its size in the world to still be on paper and not digital. well, what people at the va have done, general hickey and others, is they transformed that system from paper to electronic records. and guess what? the backlog is going down. but that's not good enough for me. we have language in this bill which will make sure that that backlog continues to go down. there's an issue that i'm sure my colleague from louisiana is very familiar with, that is in-state tuition. there are veterans from louisiana who may want to go to school in vermont or veterans from vermont who may want to go to school in the las louisiana,t they can't get in-state tuition. serious problem. we address it. what does my colleague from louisiana feel about that issue?
8:20 am
expanding health care access for recently-separated veterans. as he knows, we have legislation now which expands free health care to all those who served in iraq and afghanistan for five years. i think it should be extended for ten years. does he agree? does he not agree? veterans community feels very strongly about that issue. we have high unemployment rates for returning veterans. we want to do something to expand employment opportunities. we have the issue of sexual assault, very serious issue as we all know. and we want to make sure that the va is providing excellent quality care to those victims of sexual assault. we have, to my mind, a really tragic problem, madam president, and that is the good with news is that a few years ago congress did the right thing, and they said to the post-9/11 veterans, those men and women who came home seriously injured, that we're going to pass a caregiver's act to give support
8:21 am
to your wives or your sisters or your brothers who are providing often 24/7 care for you every single day, long hours, great stretch. and we said we're going to help you. but what we didn't do is reach back to the vietnam era, veterans, korean war veterans, even world war ii veterans. you have families today, madam chair, where you've got a 70-year-old woman who has taken care of a husband who lost his legs in vietnam day after day, year after year is getting virtually no support from the government. that's legislation with the strong support of the paralyzed veterans of america, many other organizations. we can't ignore those people. i don't know what my friend from louisiana feels about this. let's talk about it. so here's the bottom line. the bottom line is, as i have said many times, i do support the provision that the senator from louisiana speaks about. we do need these facilities. but we need a lot more.
8:22 am
and we need cooperation, people coming together. the senator from louisiana said that there were, i believe, 44 people that voted in opposition. he's right. forgot to mention there were 56 who voted for this bill with the support of every veterans organization in america, and one person who was absent who would voted for it. 57 voted for it, 44 voted against it. unfortunately, in the rules of the senate when you have a republican filibuster, we do need 60 votes. i am looking for three more republican votes. one of those votes that i would very much appreciate receiving is from the senator from louisiana. we may be two votes shy, we think we're making some progress with some other republicans. understand, we must address the serious needs facing the veterans committee. so i again extend my request to the senator from louisiana to work with me, but pending that, madam president, i would ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to calendar number 297, f1950 with the
8:23 am
standers amendment -- sanders amendment which is at the desk and is the text of 1982, the comprehensive veterans health and benefits and military retirement pay restoration act. >> is there objection? >> madam president, i -- >> the senator from louisiana. >> i object on behalf of myself and 43 other senators. >> objection is heard. >> if not for any other reason, because of substantive concerns with the bill. >> all right. >> -- [inaudible] is heard. >> madam president, i hear what my colleague from louisiana says, i hear that he objects to passing legislation which has the support of virtually every veterans organization in the country which represents millions of veterans, i hear him objecting to legislation which has the support of 57 members of the united states senate, and i hear him objecting to what i
8:24 am
believe is legislation that has the support of the vast majority of the american people who do believe we should do right by our veterans. very easy to send people off to war, a lot harder to take care of them when they come home. so, madam president, what i would simply say is i look forward to sitting down with my colleague from louisiana and other republican colleagues. and we're doing that right now. but specifically, with my colleague from louisiana, senator vitter, and see where we can agree and how we can create system significant legislation to address -- some significant legislation addressing the serious problems facing the veterans community. >> madam president? >> the senator from louisiana. >> madam president are, just to briefly repeat, i did object on behalf of myself and 43 other senators about major provisions in this bill. i think that -- happy to talk about it, happy to work on it, happy to work with senator burr who is the ranking member on the committee who has been
8:25 am
communicating all these concerns to senator sanders and his staff. but i think that's very different than objecting to a focused community-based clinic bill that has no objection on the merits. i just think it's a shame not to try to do those things where we have agreement. let's move forward, not to move forward. that would be moving forward in a substantial way. that would improve the lives quickly of veterans in 27 communities, 18 states including lafayette and lake charles, communities that, certainly, senator landrieu and i very much care about, very much want to have their va issues addressed in this light. thank you, madam president, i yield the floor. >> madam president, i would -- >> senator from vermont. >> -- simply reiterate my hope that senator vitter would sit down with me, his staff would
8:26 am
sit down with my staff, and we can work out our differences. i've always been willing to compromise, make changes in the legislation. but the veterans of this country who have put so much, have suffered so much, have been hurt so much, we owe them so much. we have got to do right by them. so with that, madam president, i would yield the floor. >> white house budget director sylvia burrwell testifies this morning at a confirmation hearing to be the next health and human services secretary. live coverage of the hearing at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3. >> we had to set up our own prison. we kind of set up our own trap. we don't know that we're actually contributing to it. when you get addicted to drugs, the whole world gets built around your need for drugs. when you get suicidal, actually, every signal in the world is you've got to die, you know what
8:27 am
i say? yeah, that's a beautiful sunrise, it's a beautiful day, you know, your parents, people love you, but everything gets closed in. all i could think about, i got that go. so i think we ourselves get caught up in those traps that society somehow contributes to. but on the other hand, we take it on personally, and we can't see what's really out there. we can't see that the world is really there, beautiful. there's angels and mentors and people who do care for you. >> this month booktv's book club selection is "it calls you back: an odyssey through love, addiction, revolutions and healing," by former gang member and community activist luis j. rodriguez. start reading and join the conversation with other readers in our book club chat room. find us at >> if you were accused of being ambitious in chinese, if you were accused of being wild-hearted, that was a, it was
8:28 am
a death sentence. professionally, it could damage your family. what it meant was that you put group before anything else -- i'm sorry, you put yourself before the group. for chinese history that was totally unimaginable either under the confusion period or -- confucian period or, of course, the socialist period. when i got there, things were beginning to change in some deep way, and what i began to hear around me was people talking about themselves. not in a sort of self-glamorizing or self-promotional way, but just in a self-protective way, and in a way that they would say it matters what i want in this world and the world that i want to define for myself. so even the term in chinese for "myself" was transforming. people were getting comfortable using it. you know, in the united states we talk about the me generation as being this period in which we started to focus on ourselves perhaps too much. in china it was a revolution in our conception of what it meant
8:29 am
to be a person. in the past people would always talk about us, the group, the family, the clan, the village, the factory. and all of a sudden beginning after 1979 when the country embarked on this economic transformation, people had no choice but to think about themselves. and that became the fuld dynamic -- the fundamental dynamic that drove my year fascination and investigation of china. >> evan osnos on the rising conflict between the individual and the chinese government sunday night at eight on c-span's "q&a." >> the supreme court last week heard oral argument in several cases regarding the privacy cell phone owners expect and the interests of law enforcement. the issue before the court in u.s. v. wurie, is about whether police must obtain a search warrant before looking at data on a cell phone after a person has been arrested. this is an hour.
8:30 am
>> we'll hear argument next in case 13212, united states v. wurie. welcome back. [laughter] >> thank you, mr. chief justice. and may it please the court, the facts of this case, united states v. wurie, i think, illustrate why any categorical rule that would preclude searches of cell phones is -- [inaudible] would be consistent with historical practice and detrimental to law enforcement. this is a case where what the officers did was see a phone ringing. on the outside screen, the caller was identified as "my house." the officers opened up the phone, pressed one button to see that the call came in from "my house," and pressed another to see what the phone number was. that's all they did. that kind of a search is serves valid, time-honored functions in the search situation of helping to ascertain the identity of the offender. this was a crucial fact because
8:31 am
a few minutes later wurie ride about where he lived which was relevant to the police ultimately obtaining a warrant to search his house. they didn't know where he was, they would not do be able to -- >> i'm not sure. yçokm35 pre. they could have gotten a warrant, and once he lied about his arrest, they would have known he budget living there and would have -- he wasn't living there and would have gotten a warrant. >> justice sotomayor, you could almost always say that the police could have gotten a warrant. it's concern i'm not talking about cases where somebody is carrying their gun and the police take their gun off them and secure it that way. of but in all of the other cases that you could imagine that involve searches for evidence -- letters which occur in the historical cases,. [inaudible] which have been discussed here -- once the officer has it, you could say the officer couldn't look under it because
8:32 am
there's no time cop statement, there's no destruction of evidence constraint. here there actually is a destruction of evidence threat with respect to the general category of cell phone, and that's what this court has been asked to look at, the general category cell phones and smartphones. we discussed whether airplane mode is an effective counter to wiping. there's another threat that i think is even more critical to law enforcement today, and that is encryption. if the phone turns off and becomes encrypted, officers can go to the magistrate and ask for a warrant, but it may be months or years or never if they can breakthrough the encryption and actually obtain the evidence. so to the extent that the traditional destruction of evidence rationale justified the search of a cell phone which justified the search of traditional items, it applies even more strongly with respect to cell phones than it does with most of the items that might be seized from a person. so the worry -- >> please tell me about
8:33 am
encryption, because i know people can encrypt, but i thought they had to do that when they put the information in the phone. >> no. as best as i understand it, justice sotomayor, many smartphones today are equipped with built-in encryption. apple has hardware encryption and software encryption. samsung and htc and other brands are quickly following with strong encryption. the encryption is deployed in a way that be you don't have the key, the data that's on the phone is useless. the key is often stored in memory, and it's accessible only when you can get into the phone. now, if the phone is on and functioning because the person has been arrested while they, for example, are making a phone call, you can get access to the phone, and you can attempt to get information from the phone without the encryption key being an obstacle. but if the encryption is deployed, that can sometimes be barrier -- >> i'm not sure on the scene the police are going to look at
8:34 am
everything in a cell phone anyway. they've got to be doing something to save it. if the encryption can be -- >> well, no, the evidence is -- the information on the phone is incriminated, this is my understanding, justice sotomayor, but the phone itself has a key to decrypt it because the user, obviously, wants to get access to the information -- >> i mean, apparently neither you nor i actually have this on their phone as far as i know, but, is i'm imagining something. maybe you have it. there is some kind of system that once it goes -- you never can get the stuff again until after eight months, and when that happens, if it happens at least ten minutes after the arrest and not before, so the policemen would have time to look at it, but the time you get to the stationhouse, the buzz already happens, and now nobody else can. >> yeah. >> maybe there is such a thing. i've never heard of it before minute or before the briefs. but why wouldn't -- you see, i'm
8:35 am
certainly incredulous about it from my tone of voice because i don't see why somebody who wanted the -- [inaudible] to keep the police away wouldn't do it after 30 seconds. >> so if you have an iphone, justice breyer, and i don't know what kind of phone you have -- >> i don't either, because i can never get into it. [laughter] >> it's encrypted. that's the problem. the phones are set up to protect the data, and this is something also -- >> you see my point is somebody who really want to go to all that trouble will surely have it turn off after 30 seconds, and the policemen won't be able to look at it. >> well, not all criminals are so clever -- >> yeah. but even a criminal who is thinking about the magistrate at the station but not thinking about the police, i mean, you see what i'm doing with your question. a little cold water on this as a rationale. >> yeah. and my response to you is that having tried to ascertain the empirical reality of this problem, it is greatly feared by law enforcement. we have documented that by the numerous studies, the national
8:36 am
institute of standards study that talks about the concerns encryption raised. it's not a problem if you get the phone in an active state and you can begin to look through it. it does have unpredictable capabilities of becoming encrypted if it's turned off or if certain apps are deployed on it. and for that reason -- >> but you have to keep the phone going anyway until you can get to a place where you do something with it. >> a lot of these searches occur, justice sotomayor, at the side of the road where the officer opens -- in the reilly case, the officer opened the phone right on the heels of the arrest and immediately saw evidence that the individual was a gang member, something he hadn't had personal knowledge of before, because every letter k was preseated by a c which -- preceded by a c which indicated he was a member of the bloods gang. so it's a very common thing for officers to take advantage of the information that's on a
8:37 am
phone just the way that they would take the information that's on a person to find out who they are dealing with. and i think it was asked in the reilly argument whether there were instances in which phones had been used to trigger dangers, and there are instances in which people with have used their cell phones right before an arrest to call in a posse of their accomplices to, basically, attack the police. and by looking at the cell phone quickly, if it's available to the officers, they can look quickly and see if there was a text cement in the last five -- sent in the last five minutes or a phone call that might actually protect their safety which is another one of the justifications. this is a categorical exception as the court recognized twice last term both in the maryland v. king decision and the mcnealy decision. the court recognized that it was a categorical exception to the normal requirement. >> mr. dreeben, something you said about the encryption, what is the experience of the police?
8:38 am
isn't it so that most cell phones when they're found on a person are not opened, that they are locked? >> justice ginsburg, i would not be able to answer a question about what condition most cell phones are found in. the fact that this issue has arisen repeatedly in cases across the country indicates that at least in a significant number of cases the phones are not locked, and the officers are able to obtain access to the information. now, if they are not able to obtain access to the information, i want to tie this back to things that could give the court some comfort if the court were concerned about the possibility for police searching too much evidence in cell phones that's not relevant to the crime for which the person is arrested or his identity. now, we talked earlier about the crime of arrest limitation
8:39 am
which, i think, would screen out a great many -- not all -- minor crimes. the court has at least in the welsh v. wisconsin case talking about exigent circumstances justifying entry into the home distinguished between serious and minor crimes. that's another possible line that the court could explore. i'm not much in favor of that one because i do think that the officers have an interest in determining no matter who they have arrested who that person is, because the person could pose an unknown threat even if they're stopped only for a traffic violation. ascertaining their identity through their cell phone is a useful way to do that. there are also potential duration limits on a search incident or arrest. as its name indicates, it's incidence to the arrest. and this court's positions have described the lowering or destruction of the expectation of piracy of the arrestee than
8:40 am
other fourth amendment doctrines kick in after the arrest. so to the extent that most of these searches are going to occur -- >> once we put in that limit, you'll just download the phone at the station, and everything, their medical records, their tax returns -- even when they're not rell -- relevant to the crime -- will be in the database. >> okay. that is my last himming principle. this court need not consider in this case the consequences of downloading the entire contents of a cell phone to a universal forensic extraction device which the briefs have talked about. that didn't happen in either of these cases. these cases involved manual searches of the information that's available to the user of the phone. once the information has been captured into ab electronic data -- an electronic database separately in an extraction device, there is at least an argument that at that point the evidence is preserved, and potentially the warrant requirement would have a
8:41 am
different application. at least if the search of that forensic database was going to go beyond ascertaining identity and verifying officer safety considerations, the court does not need to examine that in this case. it may well be that expectations of privacy do not exist after information that the user himself can quickly access on a phone, the kind of thing the police are likely to look at when they make an arrest because they're interested in developing evidence that relates to the crime, protecting their safety and ascertaining identity. they're not really interested in going through all an arrestee's medical records and photographs and so forth. >> your brief suggested a limitation with respect to access to the i cloud. >> yes. >> could you tell me the difference? >> well, i think that would be something that officers would have to develop protocols based on changing technology to address. we do not claim here the authority to use the phone to access data that is not on the phone in the cloud, and it may
8:42 am
well be that in the future more information will migrate to the cloud, less will be on the phone, and that may shift what the officers could actually do -- >> but i thought the whole idea of smartphones, mr. dr, -- dreeben is even that the user doesn't know what's on the cloud or not. >> to the extent that is true, justice kagan, we want officers to insure that they're complying with the fourth amendment would have to take the phone off the network, and that is best practices. it's discussed in all of the forensic manuals that we cited to the court. you want to take the phone off the network to avoid the remote wiping problem, to avoid corruption of data through new data coming in. it's sound forensic practice to do that, and it also serves what we think is a limiting principle. again, the court doesn't have to decide that limiting principle in this case. there's no claim any cloud data was accessed in this case. we're only saying the search incident serves a valuable
8:43 am
function, served a particularly valuable function with cell phones because they're so commonly used as the medium of commission of crimes, they're carrying the same kind of information that the individual previously would have carried in paper, and it seems somehow a little odd to say that because information has migrated from paper onto a smartphone, that the officers have a critical need to -- [inaudible] >> you don't think it's odd to say that we're living in a new world, and justice kagan's questions point out the fact that someone arrested if for a minor crime -- arrested for a minor crime has their whole existence exposed on this little device. and from your argument, you want us to adopt a categorical rule it's in the custody of the police, they can search it. do you have any limiting principles that we should consider at all as fallback for this? >> yes, justice kennedy, i do. and the first one that i think has been discussed in both arguments, and justice scalia has brought it up as well, is that the evidence to be searched
8:44 am
unless there's some exigency should be relevant to the crime of arrest, and the court can articulate that in a way that would prevent roving searches or speculative searches -- >> well, that was for an expired license. >> so i don't necessarily -- >> >> or is it the guns that were under the hood in the other cases? >> in the reilly case, the arresting officer found a green bandanna and some red and white converse shoes, i believe -- >> the crime of arrest was the expired license. >> no, the crime of arrest was the firearms. it was only after they found -- >> yes. >> -- in the impound search did they actually conduct the arrest, and at that point the ultimate search that occurred was because there was a known propensity of dang members to document -- gang members to document their firearms and pictures. it's no different than what he would have looked for on the arrestee's person, in his
8:45 am
wallet. it wasn't the kind of cloud-based search, it was a scope-focused search. so i think there are limiting principles, justice kennedy, that you referred to. one is when the officer's looking for crime of arrest related material, and there is evidence that could be plausibly said is crime of arrest related material on the phone. you could look for that. ..
8:46 am
>> what with a scope limitation be? >> it would depend on the crime. if you are looking for evidence related to the crime of possession of child pornography you could go through photographs. if you are looking for another crime, potentially drug trafficking, you look for things like drug lectures, recent contacts, lists of customers and not necessarily in videos. >> it's very hard to see how that limit would be applied. you can see and the police would be able to articulate what almost every application, every entry on a cell phone would reasonably be anticipated to have evidence of a particular crime. e-mails, call logs. even facebook. if it's a weapons crime, maybe they've got pictures of themselves with the guns. i have trouble imagining what application, what entry police could say -- could not say is recent likely that there could be evidence of the crime.
8:47 am
>> so tribute to the extent you think that's an inevitable generalization and there's a certain way of looking at it in which that's correct, then the interposition of a warrant requirement would do nothing because the warrant would say such the cell phone for athens where to drug trafficking and the phone would be searched in exactly that manner. >> the point of the war is that a person who is not involved and is objective listens to what the policeman is saying, knowing that sometimes like me or any other human being, a policeman can get a little carried away. and so if, in fact, he does show the warrant, that there is this basis, you issue the warrant. and if he doesn't you don't. it isn't because there are difficult legal questions. it's just you want that third dispassionate mind review what the facts are. if that's a person of having a warrant, how long does it take to get a warrant in the mine run of these cases? is it not a matter of hours in
8:48 am
most places? >> it may be in some places and not in others. >> in some places i'm sure it's difficult but i'd say most places, major cities, et cetera, my guess was, and i want to be correct, it's a matter of a few hours and you could more quickly if you needed to. no, i write about that? >> i don't know that you are. >> you are in a department that keeps track pretty much. you're much more expert than i. and, therefore, i would like your best guess on the mine run of things of the range of time to get a world. it varies considerably in the 50 states and the federal government depending on where you are, the availability of magistrates, the complexity of the case. i would differentiate this from the mcfeely case where the car was confident that you get to work quickly. the reason the court can be confident about that is drunk driving is a very simple crime and the officers very simple observations in order to validate it and there are forms
8:49 am
that can be prepared to get a work. we're talking about about every crime for which people are arrested. >> i see your point. >> the facts are going to be more complicated. >> assume a range. the question i'm trying to get to is this. from what you've said is the harm in saying yes, you need a warrant. but remember the art exigent circumstances. so where is someone -- the bell rings on the phone. opinion on the kind of crime, it may be imported to let the policeman answered to find out what it's coming from because it may be of the people on the gang who are coming with weapons. or alternatively, if you are right on the technology, it may be somewhat about to push a buzzer that will erase the information. remember we have the exigent circumstances. if your view of the technology is right, they will perhaps be used with common sense and caution. but you don't need a special rule other than the rule, ge the
8:50 am
award. how will that hurt? >> that is a special rule for the search incident to arrest content. we discussed a variety of special rules but that will completely compromises the interests and search incident to arrest, because they have always assumed that the interest in police discovering evidence that could help them in the prosecution that to protect their safety and that would avoid destruction is paramount given the reduced expectations of privacy speed do you work with -- >> know, this is why. i hope i can make this clear because the encryption problem is what makes it impossible for the police to be confident that you can take the time to go and get a word and you will lose the data forever. encryption kicks in when the phone is turned to a second that automatically will occur on most modern cell phones that turns the phone off and then the phone's contents become encrypted and that's when you
8:51 am
need the password to open it up. if you don't have that passwords are not going to be able to do it. law enforcement's forensic labs are going to be able to get around it, except with extraordinary efforts and extraordinary time. we are not talking about the da vinci between two minutes to get the warrant and looking at the information. it may be months if you don't take advantage of looking at it. >> how do you stop it from going off the? >> i think one of the interesting things that petitioner did in the riley case was upend back to his brief a couple of pictures of apple's iphoniphone five and i could goo the phone, if the phone is configured in the way was in the pictures that he took, and disable the auto lock feature. what petitioner did not do was provide similar information for the 500 or so other phones that are on the market and that will be on the market in the coming years so that police officers will be equipped with a manual that would probably be as thick as the new york city telephone book with the various procedures
8:52 am
that are need to prevent any phone from going into an encryption mode and becoming inaccessible. they don't know that at the time they seize the phone, justice breyer, and that's why exigent circumstances unless it's done as a categorical rule because i did not know whether this phone would encrypt, i searched it, and lets you do that then you're basically putting the officers at the mercy of technology which will increasingly be able to defeat their ability to conduct the kind of routine searches that have always conducted in the past. >> they've got own technological front in this battle, too. to the extent there are flaws in the faraday bag, i would see surprised if that's not approved over the next months or years or whatever. >> mr. chief justice, it's an arms race between the forensic capabilities of law enforcement labs and the abilities of cell phone manufacturers and criminals to devise technologies that will thwart them.
8:53 am
they will leapfrog each other at times and there may be buried when law enforcement has the vantage and there may be periods where those people who want to protect against revelation of data on the phone will succeed. my only point here is that it would not be a wise rule for this court to announce based on today's technology and reasonable projections of technology that the police would just easily be able to go and get a wart. my experience from the people i've spoken with is that a lot of phones are arriving at the lab a lot in encrypted state and it's tough to do with that. if the court does have concerns as many members of the court have expressed about applying lock, stock and barrel the traditional robinson rule, there are ways stations and compromise positions. this case i think as california pointed out, this case and riley, don't really involve totally unpacking somebody's life from their smartphone. i'm not suggesting the court should resolve these cases by
8:54 am
announcing a rule that's just limited to the facts of the case is but if the court is looking to preserve some areas for protection, we've talked to limiting the justification for a search, limiting the scope of research, limiting the duration of the search, and limiting the intensity in the sense of confining it to what can be found manually on the phone. >> do you see what i was trained to do with the word exigency? i was tried to figure out if that's the way dealing with the unknown here, which is your problem, that if, in fact, technology is such that the policeman, it's really cute if he has five minutes to search, oh he can get this valuable evidence and if the technology is such that it doesn't even give him five minutes, or if it such that it gives them four or five hours, or if it's such that he can press a button, or if it's the opposite and they can just cough and decrypt it, all that will be fed into the word
8:55 am
executes the which we wouldn't have to decide now. but rather, you could make your arguments about the real exigency for preventing the destruction later in the context of what turns out to be the technology of the time. that's what was going on. >> justice breyer, the reason why robinson adopted a categorical rule is a concluded that such case-by-case adjudication for officers in the field is completely infeasible. when balancing the more law enforcement interests against the reduced expectations of privacy, robinson struck a categorical balance. reverting to an exigent circumstances analysis here with unstable as all of the law under robinson. >> how about a plainview announces? turn on the phone, see if there's been a telephone call within a reasonable amount of time of the arrest or any message that was sent at the time of arrest. that's sort of a plain view
8:56 am
situation. it would take care of your person with a picture of him or herself with the guns. it would take care of the call to the confederate. it would take care of the imminent destruction of the phone. >> justice sotomayor, i'm not entirely sure how to articulate that principle, but if it fits within the crime of arrest plus identity principle, and i think it would be a reasonable fallback position. if i could reserve the balance of my time. >> thank you, counsel. ms. mizner. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court. i'd like to first talk about the encryption that we've been discussing. it's not an issue in this case. it was not an issue in riley. it was not litigated below. the government has just now said that there are a lot of phones arriving at a lab in a locked state, but do we know whether
8:57 am
they're in a locked state because they were locked at the time that they were seized or did they lock subsequently? the number of password-protected phones that are open at the time of arrest is pure speculation. and if they're not open at the time of arrest, the government's argument about locking is irrelevant. the number of password-protected phones that would be inaccessible at a later time is also an unknown and speculative the quantity. there are devices that can break passwords. technology advances on both fronts. the government has capabilities of breaking the more typical passwords, the four digit or letter passwords within 15 minutes. you can obtain assistance from manufacturers in obtaining the passwords and ability --
8:58 am
>> we've kind of gotten far afield, which i'm not sure may not be fair to mr. fisher or mr. dumont. we're talking about their case, but in your case why isn't the information in plain view? it says my house, my home. a look at it, that's what they see. they don't have to open anythi anything. >> is a country passionate they saw the words my house. they did have to open the phone and access the log. >> you have no objection to the my house? >> the my house words were in plain view. >> i assume it says my house because he's done something with that particular number. if you didn't it would be the number itself that would show up at? >> yes, that's part of -- >> so that would also be in plain view? >> the number was not in plain view. >> no, no. but i mean in a case in which the user had not go to the particular number the number would show up, right?
8:59 am
>> yes. >> and that would be -- >> the number would be in plain view. out what makes the privacy interest and the associational interest in simply the call logs, which the government has talked about in mr. wurie's case is that it does contain more than simply the numbers dialed. you have the associational information that's created by the user. in this case it was linking my house to a particular number. it can go well beyond that. you can link names and the names and places to remember. you can link e-mails to a name and a number. you can link the relationship to a name and a number. doctor, shrink, mom, dad. you can link a photograph to a number. you can link it to text messages. you can link it to other numbers. you can provide patterns and also patterns of calling that provide additional associational data and could indicate the
9:00 am
closeness o of the relationship. how often calls were made, when are they may come what's the time of the call, when did it start or start -- stop, the length of the goal. you can link nodes either general or about a particular phone call. >> what you think of the phone rings and the police answer at? >> the cases that have addressed answering the phone had been in the context of search warrants for houses where, as the police are searching the house, the phone has been ringing. the courts have said -- the lower courts have said that where entering the phone can be viewed as being within the scope of the search warrant, it is permissible for the police to answer the phone. >> what about this case where there isn't a
9:01 am
9:02 am
and then you pray the person who found it answers it. >> and perhaps this would be analogous to that. >> it's got nothing to do with plane hitting. i'm -- they can hear the ring. it's a big difference to answer it. >> if the police have seized the phone and they can secure it, pending application for a warrant to engage in a search of its contents, then answering the phone could be viewed as part of securing. >> does the owner of a cell phone have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the call on? >> yes, i believe for the associational data and reasons that i just articulated that there is an expectation of privacy in the call log.
9:03 am
>> but the cell phone company has all that information, doesn't? >> no. the cell phone company -- >> has the numbers. >> but does the cell phone owner had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a list of the numbers called? >> not in the list of the numbers alone but the call log is not limited to that list of numbers. your phone bill may not necessarily include, depending on the kind of plan you have, and may not include information about the length of the call or -- >> the cell phone company won't have information about the length of the called? >> i think it would depend on whether they keep that information, it would depend on what kind of plan you have. >> what are dealing with fear? i know everyone wants to talk about global issues, but what information are we talking about in this case? we have my home which he said is in plain view, my house, and
9:04 am
then you have the call log. what else do we have? >> that is all that was accessed. we are talking about the phone number that allowed the police to get to a particular premises. >> if the call log, the numbers called, is not covered by a reasonable expectation of privacy, and my house is not covered by a reasonable expectation of privacy, then where is the search? >> the search is in opening the phone itself, which is covered by a reasonable expectation of privacy. >> and you could do that and look for a razor blade? >> you could -- you are didn't -- >> flip open the old style flip phone to see if there's something inside? >> yes, you could examine it at that is not going to get to the phone number. the officer had to push a button in order to get access to the call logs. they were two buttons that --
9:05 am
>> but what is the reason, by pushing the button you get information that you just told me is not covered by a regional expectation of privacy. >> no, justice alito, i believe i said information is covered by a regional expectation of privacy because there is associational information that is included by the owner or -- >> but with any of that used? >> it was the link between my house and the number, yes, that got them to the premises. >> they saw the phone rang at a particular time, and then if you look at the call log you can see what call came in at a particular time. and then you know where the call came from that registered as my house. >> but you would know that it was my house absent the information that the owner of the phone had put him spend why is that something -- but i don't understand the facts. if they phone rang right now and you look at the call log and you
9:06 am
see what call came in at 12:13, and you know that the call came from my house and you see the number of the call became at 12:13, wouldn't you know that was a number from my house? >> but you wouldn't know from the call log alone with that information input by the phone owner on that log that it was my house once they get the number. >> if it wasn't input, you would have the number itself in plain view. >> yes, but you within, you could go to some kind of reverse directory to get an address. you have no -- what is the reason to believe that -- >> you wouldn't know it was the house. >> county police searched the persons wallet and find an index card with a number, my house? >> i believe -- >> and use the information obtained? >> i believe that the police can
9:07 am
examine the contents of -- >> examined the contents of the wallet but not read it? i don't understand the issue. may the police or may not the police examined a wallet, find the number that says my house, and act on the information to investigate the crime? yes or no? >> this court has not addressed the reading of information examined in -- in -- searching for incident to arrest. well, it seems to me that it's fairly clear that it's part of the contents that are seized, that are in the possession of the arrestee and the police can act on it. >> under the justifications which were generated in robinson and in gant and in mcfeely, the justifications are officers of safety and evidence preservation. which does not necessarily
9:08 am
encompass reading to address the case of the cell phone i don't think you have to resolve whether it's appropriate to read paper documents that you come across. >> the point is the only information they got and used was the phone number and address of his house, right? and that it was his house, right? >> but that -- >> that's on your driver's license, isn't it? >> your residence is that this was not -- they needed his driver's license which they had. >> so i guess i'm just trying to see what greater invasion of privacy there was in this case than the police looking at your driver's license when you're carrying it around in your wallet. >> because my house may not necessary be the house in which you reside. you may have chosen to attach that description of -- >> so the problem here was that
9:09 am
he called -- he indicated that a number was his house, and it might not have been his house? >> the problem is that the police searched his phone in order to associate information contained in the phone with what they were able to observe in plain view. >> there had to be two buttons. >> yes. >> was there a claim made in this case that exigent circumstances, destruction of evidence, or officer safety justified the search? >> no. >> so i guess if there is a rule that says you can search phones, then you could do it. after all, you might search a phone and come up with an advertisement for a walt disney movie, which is perfectly public. but if the rule is you can't search phones, then you win, even though in this case they came up with something that -- is that right or not? >> yes.
9:10 am
>> if, in fact, you can search of the phone thoroughly for everything in the persons life, they might've come up with something when he was six years old, there is an effective picture of an elephant at the zoo. totally public. but it would still fall within the rule, which what i thought one of the things we're arguing about in this case. >> yes, justice breyer, and we believe that the season secure rule that we are proposing meets the needs of law enforcement by allowing them to maintain custody -- >> what is your argument for the position, look, when you search a phone sometimes what you come up with is perfectly public information. sometimes what you come up with is private information. you want to say the absolute rule should be no. what you're arguing rather than trying to say sometimes if you get the private information know, but you get the public
9:11 am
information, yes? >> because everything is so intermingled on a cell phone or a tablet or a computer you don't know what you're going to be getting when you push those buttons and start rummaging through the digital content of the phone. >> in determining whether the examination of information on a cell phone constitutes a search, what do you think we are doing? are we answering and empirical question, what is the regional expectation of privacy of the person in 2014 who has a cell phone on his or her person? or are we legislating what we think is a good privacy rule? >> i think the court is determining whether or not in 2014 an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy against government intrusion into a device that carries around an increasingly
9:12 am
large percentage of somebody's personal and private informati information. >> all right. well, part of that is the person must act, people must actually have that expectation. that must be the expectation of people at large in 2014, that they think that everything that's on their cell phones is private, or they think some of the information on the cell phones is private, or they think nothing on the cell phone is private. where do you think we should look to answer that question about what people in 2014 think about that question? >> i think from the fact that people carry them with them in a pocket or in a purse, and that that exhibits an expectation of privacy. you don't expect people to be rummaging through your pockets or through the items you are tearing. >> why is that so?
9:13 am
cell phones are different. i'm not going to suggest for a second that there are like things that existed in the predigital area. but in the pre-digital era, presumably people to never reasonable expectation of privacy in papers, letters, things like that that they had, photos and a billfold, numbers, addresses, things they might be carrying on their persons. so how do we determine what the new expect station of privacy is now -- expectation? >> i think people did have an expectation of privacy in those items. >> then why was it not a search when you search the pocket of somebody who was arrested and found the address of someplace? >> i believe it is a search, justice alito. it's a question of whether it is a search that has been justified i an exception to the work requirement, or the permissible scope of the search incident to arrest. it's still a search. >> all right. how do we determine whether
9:14 am
somebody has a graceful expectation of privacy in any category of information that is contained on a cellphone? >> because of the interconnectivity of the data, i don't think you can say a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in this app, but not that app, because you don't know what is linked to any other part of the cell phone. so the rule that provides the security of the fourth amendment is intended to give an individual would be to say -- >> are you -- i'm assuming that what you're saying, you just set it a minute ago, the fourth amendment, the searches incident to arrest are an exception to the fourth amendment?
9:15 am
>> yes, justice sotomayor. >> is it your position, i'm assuming this is what this arguments an been about, which s whether the going to extend that exception, the exception of searches incident to arrest to a new category, cell phones, which are different than the traditional item. >> whether the scope of a justifiable search incident to arrest is going to include a search of the cell phone spent why do you say to our exception to the fourth amendment? they just don't violate the fourth amendment. i mean, the fourth amendment cover certain things and it doesn't cover other things. the things that it doesn't cover are not, not exceptions to the edges of things not covered. >> well, this court has espoused a word presumption and has classified the search incident to arrest exigent circumstances as exceptions to the word requirements thing that the preference is for a woman to be
9:16 am
obtained and under certain well-defined circumstances we're going to say that you may not. >> well but that presumption is simply not -- you don't believe that presumption, do you? the are many more searches conducted without a warrant than with a word, i bet. any automobile search, any inventory search, any search of businesses. all sorts of searches are conducted without a warrant. but you still believe that a warrant is the rule and everything else is the exception. i think it may be the opposite actually. >> unless the exceptions have swallowed the rule. >> in the exceptions, viewing the search incident to arrest exception as having limited parameters as the first circuit did -- >> the question is whether it's an unreasonable search, and the
9:17 am
war to clause follows much later. the question is, is this an unreasonable search? that's what the constitution provides spent this court has said in many instances that a search not conducted pursuant to a ward is unreasonable unless it falls within one of the well-defined exceptions that this court has recognized to the warrant requirement. >> it's a search that's reasonable. that's necessarily an exception. >> but in terms of reasonableness, this court is bouncing the intrusion against the individual's interest in privacy -- >> yeah, and that's the -- >> a traditional balancing test, and we suggest that balance your supports the seize and secure rule that we are advocating. >> i understand that but that's the question i was asking before. is it a reasonable search or seizure? all right. so you have to balance the privacy interests versus the law
9:18 am
enforcement interest. how do we find out what the privacy interests are, what the privacy expectations are, which go into that balance with respect to cell phones in 2014? >> does it matter? do you think it doesn't matter? maybe people feel very strongly every single thing that's in the cell phone is private, or maybe they don't. maybe they think somethings are private, some things are not private. >> i think by virtue of the fact that you carry them around in a generally enclosed container, a pocket, a purse, a briefcase, that that exhibits, that is an indication that people expect that the cell phone, that the information contained on their cell phone is private. >> as opposed to what? carrying it around somewhere other than your pockets? do you think there's a difference if it's attached to someone's belt and everybody can see it or if it's in a pocket?
9:19 am
>> no. i believe because you're carrying it with you, it's not something that you're exhibiting to the public. do not exhibiting the contents of the phone to the public. >> surely it's more private if it's locked in a car or kept in your house. carrying it with you in public makes it less private. >> but you're not -- it may be less private but that doesn't mean you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy against people taking it from you and starting to intrude and rummage through its contents. >> but then that questions the ability of the police to take the phone. i thought that was a given, that incident to the arrest, the police could take the phone. the question is whether they can search it without a warrant. >> yes, justice ginsburg. i was responding in terms of just a general expectation that people are not going to -- because you are carrying a phone in public, it doesn't mean that
9:20 am
you expect that people are going to walk up and remove it from your belt or remove it from your pocket and start searching its contents stanky did say the same thing about a cigarette pack that has cocaine in it. >> or a gun. >> or a gun. >> and the police may seize and examine those containers -- >> write -- >> to see whether or not -- >> that's exactly the question. do you have a reasonable -- our goal has been if he carried it on your person, you ought to know it is subject to seizure and examination, and that's been the rule. >> it's the scope of examination that is at issue with a cell phone. a cell phone is fundamentally different from a cigarette pack. you can open a cigarette pack. you see whether or not there is something that is subject to destruction. but whether -- >> and you can open the cell phone and see whatever is in the. if you carry around a cell phone that isn't encrypted or
9:21 am
whatever, you get what you should have expected. that's been the rule. if you are arrested, we can seize it and examine it. >> the question is what is the scope of a permissible examination. and when you're talking about a cigarette pack, you're looking at another physical object. you're not looking at the contents of somebody's home. >> i understand, so you are arguing for a new rule. the rule up to now, we can see sick and we can examine it totally. if it's a book we can read every page of the vote. you want a new rule for cell phones, right? >> we wanted will that says that you cannot search the contents of the cell phone without a board. >> at all? >> absolute exigent circumstances. >> will be an exigent circumstance where you could search, in your view? >> an exigent circumstance? >> you said you are arguing for a flat roll to the police, thou
9:22 am
shalt not unless there are exigent circumstances. so what would be an exigent circumstance where the police, without getting a ward, could search the cell phone? >> one would be an example of police are investigating a bombing, a potential bombing, and they have information that whoever is going to set off the bomb is going to -- me do it with a cell phone, and he's going to be in a particular place at a particular time. you see someone approaching with a cell phone, and suggest under the circumstances you could -- >> this is kind of -- >> take whatever measures you needed. >> it's not a bomb but this is a different case. is a summit in areas selling drugs where the police have told us they typically use cell phones to arrange the deals and the transfers and this guy is
9:23 am
caught with two cell phones. why would he have to cell phones? >> many people have multiple cell phones. >> really? what is your authority for the statement that many people have multiple cell phones on their person? >> just observations. >> you've observed different people from the people that either absurd. [laughter] -- i observed. >> that's probably true. >> particularly since they're in their pockets, right? is it significant in your view that the cell phone was a method for which criminal transactions were typically undertaken in this area and that the fellow had two cell phones rather than what i would've thought is the more normal one? >> yes. i don't believe that should be a criteria justification for searching either cell phone. it may be convenient for the police to get information related to the crime by searching root -- without a
9:24 am
warrant, but this court has said repeatedly that convenience and efficiency don't override individual constitutional rights. and sanctioning a general evidence gathering search of the entire contents of his cell phone, given the current expansive nature of those contents is an unwarranted expansion of a traditional search incident to arrest, because we are not talking about the kind of traditional containers that hold limited, finite quantities of usually other objects. there is nothing -- a seize-and-secure rule protects both the individual's expectations of privacy and security and the governments right to obtaining evidence consonant with the protections of the warrant requirement,
9:25 am
given the neutral magistrate an opportunity to determine whether there's probable cause for the search of the cell phone and to define the limits of that sear search. >> mr. dreeben, you have four minutes remaining. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court. a search incident to arrest has always been considered a graceful search within the meaning of the fourth amendment and i think this case illustrates why that principle will applies to a cell phone. >> this is a very big confusion to the fourth amendment. the fourth amendment doesn't permit reasonable searches without a word but it says you need a warrant. we've created exceptions to that but not because they searches reasonably are virtually every search could be reasonable without a warrant. if you've watched somebody selling drugs, it's very reasonable to going to the house, but absent a exigent
9:26 am
circumstance of the drugs disappearing, you can't. so i don't talk about and reasonable searches. >> so justice sotomayor, the fourth amendment doesn't actually say you do need a ward. it does protect the right against unreachable seizures and it describes what awards must contain. >> that's the only thing it prohibits is unreachable seizures. >> that's the textual prohibition to this court has greater language in its jurisprudence that prefers warrants in certain circumstances but as the court recognized in mcneely last term and in maryland v. king, the search incident to arrest doctrine is a categorical exception and this case illustrates why. the information that was down on the phone was very time sensitive and important to law enforcement. it helpful to the difficult purposes, categorical purposes of the search incident to arrest doctrine. it help verify identity, help solve the crime for which the
9:27 am
individual was arrested, and and it was done in a reasonable and nonintrusive manner. there was nothing about this search that expose reins of private data to view. to the extent that the data was not in a call log really subject to reasonable expectation of privacy at all, it was discovered in a search but i think that underscores why the search was limited and reasonable. so this case really i think exemplifies why a categorical rule that respondent urges in this case would not be appropriate, and we submit that this court should reverse the court of appeals. thank you. >> thank you, mr. dreeben. the case is submitted. >> set up our own prison, our own try. we don't know we are contributing to it. when you get addicted to drugs this whole world gets built around the need for drugs. when you get suicidal exit. every signal of the world can you kind of guy.
9:28 am
it's a beautiful sunrise, a beautiful day. your parents, people love you but everything gets closed in. all i can think about, i think we are caught up in the traps, exercises and a pinch of its two but on the other hand, we take it on personally and we can see which will be out there. we can see if the world is really there. beautiful, angels and mentors and people who care for you. >> this month booktv's book club selection is "it calls you back," an odyssey through love, addiction, revolutions and healing by former gang member and community activists luis j. rodriguez. start reading and join the conversation with other readers in our book club chat room. find us at the >> white house budget director sylvia burwell testifies this morning at a confirmation hearing to be the next hhs
9:29 am
secretary. live coverage of the senate house committee hearing and 90 a.m. eastern on c-span3. -- 9:30 a.m. spent a collection of interviews with some of the nations top storytellers spent half the reason i did this book is more tha the because when she arrived in berlin with the family, she was in love with which referred to as the nazi revolution but she was enthralled by, struck as a complete surprising thing to do what we all know, hindsight and how could you ask the enthralled with the nazi revolution, but there she was. >> one of 41 unique voices from 25 years of our book notes and q&a conversations. c-span's "sundays at eight" published by public affairs books now available at your favorite bookseller. >> the senate gaveling in in just a moment. the pending energy bill on the
9:30 am
floor provides incentives for energy efficient manufacturing and promotes energy savings. party leaders continue to work on an agreement to bring the bill to a final vote. in the meantime today majority leader harry reid is scheduled several rounds of votes on some of president obama's judicial and executive branch nominees, including confirmation votes on three district court nominations. live now to the senate floor here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. today's opening prayer will be offered by pastor trevor barton, pastor of haoebg hawk creek baptist church in london, kentucky. the guest chaplain: gracious lord, as the most high god who is alone is sovereign over the kingdoms of this world; we stand in awe of you. we stand in awe of your faithfulness to this great
9:31 am
nation, whose history itself gives witness to your gracious providence. we are grateful to know that you are the author of our storied past, and we are confidently optimistic to know that you are the architect of our blessed future. so as we move toward that which you have prepared for us, we pray for all of those who will lead us toward that better tomorrow. we pray that this senate and our national leaders would have unparalleled wisdom as they navigate the complexities ever before them. enable them to know what is best and to do what is best. may they serve always with the most noble of intentions and be forever found to be the epitome and essence of heroic statesmen as they exchange and debate the most important ideas of their day. give our leaders a compelling vision for america's future. a future that is full of what could be and more importantly a future of what should be. may the authority entrusted to them always be leveraged for the good of others. finally, may all leaders and their individual who call this republic their home, live their lives by the most profound but simplistic of ethics -- to love our neighbors as our self.
9:32 am
continue to preserve and protect this great democracy. may the motives and methods of this united states senate and the united states of america always be to please thee. in your holy, loving name i pray. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., may 8, 2014. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable john walsh, a senator from the state of montana,
9:33 am
to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: majority leader. mr. reid: i move to proceed to calendar number 332, h.r. 3474. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 332, h.r. 3474, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986, and so forth. mr. reid: following my remarks and those of the republican leader, the senate will be in controlled time until 11:15. that will be equally divided and controlled. there will be a series of votes beginning at 11:15. another series of votes at 1:45. this will be to confirm a number of nominations. there could be as many as nine votes. we'll see what happens as the day goes on. yesterday i filed cloture on the
9:34 am
energy efficiency bill. as a result of that filing, all first-degree amendments are due today by 1:00 p.m.
9:35 am
9:36 am
mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: anyone who watches the senate on c-span knows the desks in the senate chamber are split between democrats and republicans. but when i come into the senate chamber anymore, we shouldn't have just democrats and republicans. we should have obstructionists. with the democrats, there are 55 of us. with the republicans any more, there are 6 or 7 on a good day
9:37 am
and obstructionists about 40 for sure on any day. so, mr. president, as legislators, republicans who like senate democrats are tired of all the useless obstruction and want to get things done for americans, and the obstructionists, the guardians of gridlock, as the republican leader has probably called himself, are playing politics and constantly grinding the wheels of the senate to a standstill, stopped. over the last few months i've spoken with republicans who are fed up with the obstruction in this body. i've spoken with them in my office. they come to see me. on the senate floor and various places. so these republicans always have the same message for me: we came to the senate to get things done, so let's work together. i'm happy to work with them, as we did a few months ago with the child care development block grant. that's who i've always been in this chamber. when i was the whip, mr. president, my republican colleagues knew i was someone they could talk to, work with
9:38 am
and get things done. it's a shame that the republican leader has decided that being the proud guardian of gridlock -- his words, not mine -- is more important than working with us to get things done for the american people. the shaheen-portman energy efficiency bill is a perfect example. senator shaheen and senator portman and their cosponsors brought their bipartisan legislation to the floor last september. regrettably a republican senator on a one man crusade against health benefits for senate staffers filibustered the bill. senators shaheen and portman didn't give up. they worked with democrats and republicans for seven months to strengthen the bill, to get more bipartisan support along the way. this legislation will give our country more energy independence, protect our environment and save american families money on their energy bills. it also creates 200,000 jobs that can't be exported. when the legislation was
9:39 am
finalized, senators shaheen and portman were ready to bring the bill to the senate floor. in anticipation of the bill's consideration, republicans who worked on this bill came to speak with me prior to the easter recess. they told me the bill which now included ten republican supported amendments was ready for passage. they requested that i fill the legislative tree to ensure the bill would pass. i repeat: republican senators twaopbgt pass this bipartisan -- wanting to pass this bipartisan bill asked me to bring the bill to a vote as soon as possible as is. and that's what i did. for those republicans acting in good faith passage of the energy efficiency legislation was the most important thing. unfortunately, the obstructionist wing of the republican caucus decided once again to block this bill. but this time it's not the junior senator from louisiana bringing a bipartisan bill to a screeching halt. it's the guardian of gridlock himself, my friend the republican leader. senators portman, ayotte, collins, isakson, murkowski and
9:40 am
wicker have done good work on this legislation. what a shame that they'll see their efforts scrapped by my friend, the republican leader. this isn't the first time he's steam rolled members of his own caucus. for example, the senate considered a bipartisan transportation appropriations bill. the subcommittee chair, patty murray and ranking member susan collins worked for months on that legislation. not withstanding the bipartisan support for the bill or senator collins hard work, the republican leader single-handedly dismantled the bill and there are other examples. after the legislation was blocked, the senior senator from maine was quoted as saying that she had never seen the republican leader work so hard to defeat a member of his own caucus. if my republican counterpart wants to keep blocking his own senators' bipartisan efforts, go ahead but it's not good for the country. eventually members of his caucus will break from the gridlock to get the constituents the help they need just as a handful of
9:41 am
republicans did with the recent extension of unemployment benefits. i'm appealing to the republican leader, who i -- mr. president, let me say this. i'm appealing to republicans, help us work. let's get things done. this is a good bill. it deserves to pass. i invite my friend, the republican leader, to listen to the members of his own caucus who worked so hard on this legislation. i know back home in kentucky, the republican leader recently said it wasn't his job to create jobs, but most of us around here disagree with him and want to work to create jobs. and this bill, 200,000 jobs will be created. so i say to my friend from kentucky, honor your members efforts and the bipartisan compromise that created this legislation and allow us to vote on shaheen-portman. bring this unnecessary obstruction to an end and pass this energy efficient legislation. it's what democrats want. it's what republicans want. more importantly, it's what the
9:42 am
american people want and what they need. mr. president, i have two bills at the desk due for second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the titles of the bills for the second time. the clerk: h.r. 2824, an act to amend the surface mining control and reclamation act of 1977, and so forth and for other purposes. h.r. 3826, an act to provide direction to the administrator of the environmental protection agency, and so forth and for other purposes. mr. reid: i object to further proceedings with respect to these bills. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bills will be placed on the calendar. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, we're all pleased today to welcome pastor trevor barton to the senate as he delivered the opening prayer. pastor trevor as everyone calls
9:43 am
him, serves as lead pastor at hawk creek baptist church in london, kentucky. he's a laid-back guy, not big on fancy titles, the kind of pastor who would rather be preaching in blue jeans than a suit. but under his leadership hawk creek has exploded from a tiny fellowship to a congregation of well over 1,000 souls. i hear that some parishioners drive all the way from tennessee and virginia just to listen to his sermons. and apparently pastor trevor's parishioners aren't the only ones who have had a long commute to hawk creek either. i hear the pastor sometimes drove in from almost an hour and a half away from lexington. he did so so he could be close to his two young sons, shepherd and grayson, and to his wife allison as she worked on a residency at u.k. hospital.
9:44 am
still, pastor trevor has developed important ties with the community in and around london. hawk creek does a lot of work with the appalachian children's home. his church also has an important partnership with the local jail. pastor trevor's certificate pho*pbs are -- sermons are piped in live every day sun for inmates to hear. one of my staff told me she heard it piped in from a parking lot of that jail. i think it says a lot about hawk creek church and underscores something today's guest chaplain once said. whether you've messed up in the past, present, or future, you are welcome in this church. so i'm proud to introduce pastor trevor today. we've been pleased to have him here as he dignified our
9:45 am
proceedings with a prayer. earlier this week the supreme court did the right thing by affirming his right to do so. i'm delighted to welcome this fellow kentuckian as he carries out this proud, proud american tradition. mr. mcconnell: now, mr. president, on another matter, the american people sent us to washington to debate serious issues. they expect us to take our jobs seriously. to develop effective solutions to the issues that matter to them. that's our charge. and throughout our nation's history, the senate has been the place where the weightiest issues have been discussed and debated and in many cases resolved. it's where we wrestled with whether or not to go to war.
9:46 am
it's where we passed landmark bipartisan legislation like the civil rights act, the g.i. bill and the welfare reform act. but over the past several years and very vividly in the past several months, that proud history has started to erode. instead of a forum for debate and resolution of the most pressing domestic and international issues facing our nation, it's become fodder for late-night tv. when the american people turn on c-span these days, they don't often see a majority party driving serious debate on the issues of the day. they hear bizarre monologs about greased pigs and a couple of kansans the majority leader seems to be thinking about all the time. they see a daily display of absurd political theater that has almost no relevance at all to their daily lives.
9:47 am
it's really quite disgraceful. but it's no surprise either since the democratic majority clearly ran out of ideas a long time ago. their refusal to engage in serious debate is just another symptom of that. senate democrats are afraid to expose their party's empty play book so they play games instead. they fill the time with aimless diatribes against private citizens and legislative theatrics that are more about satisfying their liberal patrons than addressing the real concerns and anxieties of the american middle class. it's all about revving up the far left for them, so they will show up in november and save the president's senate majority. that's the hope at least. but the larger point is this. as washington democrats seek to preserve their hold on power, they are becoming increasingly untethered from the daily concerns of average americans. that's why you're seeing the senate lose its sense of purpose. that's why you're not seeing any
9:48 am
real debates. instead of listening to the needs of the middle class, they dance to the tune of the left. that's why you see senate democrats pushing legislation that would cost up to a million jobs at a time when the middle class is practically begging us to create jobs. that's why you see senate democrats basically boasting that their legislative agenda was drafted by campaign staffers with no shame at all. and that's why you see senate democrats killing job creation bills the house sends us without even so much as a vote. no wonder the american people are so disgusted with washington. wouldn't you be? the majority's antics this week were particularly shameful. they shook their fists and declared that global warming was the most important issue of our age, yet to stand in the way of their prefeared solutions would be at best immoral. they shouted it from the rooftops and presumably sent e.m.s. to left-wing supporters to let them know just how
9:49 am
serious they were and how republicans were somehow holding things up. what they didn't tell their supporters was that the democrats' own majority leader who also spoke forcefully on the issue yesterday has been blocking the senate from voting on global warming for years. why? because he doesn't want his fellow senate democrats to have to take a tough vote and because he knows it would never pass a chamber democrats control anyway. like i said, almost everything has become a show in the senate now. the needs of the middle class are simply lost in the shuffle, and the institution itself is trivialized, it's diminished. the senate used to be a place where we discuss the pressing issues of the day. we would be able to do so again if the senate floor weren't being used as a campaign studio. on iran, republicans have tried for months to debate and vote on additional sanctions to put an end to its nuclear program.
9:50 am
we know that a huge bipartisan majority would vote for increased sanctions if the majority leader would only allow the vote to come to the floor, but he won't. just like he stopped us from voting to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline yesterday resulting in headlines like this one from a.p. -- "democratic leader blocks senate vote on keystone." "democratic leader blocks senate vote on keystone." in fact, at a time when we should have been debating energy, the majority leader refused to allow a single republican amendment on energy this week, not a one. as i have noted in recent days in the republican-led house has offered democrats 125 roll call votes on their amendments since last july. here in the senate, the majority leader has allowed us nine. nine amendments, roll call amendments from senate republicans since july.
9:51 am
let me put a finer point on that. democrats in the house have received more than twice as many roll call votes on energy-related amendments alone as we have received on all amendments since july. that's not the way this body was meant to function. it's disrespectful to the millions of american citizens represented on the republican side of the aisle. they deserve a chance to be heard. the way the senate operates these days is a travesty. no real debate, no amendments, no respect for the millions of americans represented by the minority party. it's become an arm of the democratic senatorial campaign committee. we owe the american people so much more than that. it's time to focus on the middle class again, to let go of the obsession with the far left and the next election. it's time for the senate to be
9:52 am
the senate again. the presiding officer: under the previous order -- mr. mcconnell: i still have the floor, mr. president. finally, mr. president, on an entirely different matter, i want to speak today about a brave young u.s. army soldier from my home state of kentucky who was lost in battle. sergeant jeremy r. summers of brooksville, kentucky, perished on july 14, 2011, from wounds suffered when the enemy attacked his unit with small arms fire in the paktika province of
9:53 am
afghanistan. he was 27 years old. for his service in uniform, sergeant summers received many awards, medals and decorations, including the bronze star medal, the purple heart medal, two army commendation medals, the army achievement medal, the army good conduct medal, the national defense service medal. the afghanistan campaign medal with bronze service star, the global war on terrorism expeditionary medal, the global war on terrorism service medal, the korean defense service medal, the army service ribbon, three overseas service ribbons, the nato medal and the combat action badge. kenneth michael summers, jeremy's father, says this about his son -- "he never hesitated
9:54 am
to make a new soldier feel welcome into the unit. there was one soldier who said he was so scared because he was a newbie, but jeremy stepped up and helped him. the other soldier said for that he was so thankful and would never forget jeremy. that was a common story when soldiers told us about their experiences with jeremy. jeremy was not only thoughtful and willing to help others, he was also a dedicated and committed service member. and i'm sure it was due in part to his following the example that was set for him. both jeremy's father and his mother, laura jo summers, served in the army. jeremy graduated from bracken county high school in brooksville in 2002, enlisted in the army in march of 2005, and served for six years. at the time of his deployment to
9:55 am
afghanistan, he was serving as a u.s. army forward scout observer and was assigned to headquarters and headquarters company, second battalion, 506th infantry regiment, 101st airborne division based out of fort campbell, kentucky. previously, jeremy had deployed to both iraq and korea. jeremy was a voracious reader and loved to watch scary movies. he was known to indulge in a practical joke or two to scare his friends. jeremy was also a bright student in school who earned a degree in computer engineering after his first tour of duty. jeremy asked his parents for advice about re-enlisting and decided to continue serving his country in uniform. sergeant summers has followed not only the tradition of his parents but also the tradition of service of so many brave
9:56 am
kentucky men and women who have worn our country's uniform. he felt more comfortable in the military lifestyle than he did as a civilian, jeremy's father recalls. i reckon it was only fitting since he started life as a military brat and ended up as an honorable soldier. speaking for his family, jeremy's father continues on to say this -- jeremy was a good listener, a great friend, an awesome brother and a terrific son. i wish all of you who -- could have known him like we did. he is still one of our heart's greatest treasures. so, mr. president, we're thinking of sergeant summers' family today after the loss of one of their heart's greatest treasures. these include his parents, kenneth michael and laura jo summers, his grandparents joyce wagner and mary fowler, his
9:57 am
siblings austin hunter and jessica elizabeth summers and many other beloved family members and friends. my colleagues and i here in the senate extend our greatest sympathies and condolences to the summers family for the loss of their son, brother, grandson and friend, jeremy. we're proud of him for flg the example set by his parents in volunteering to wear an american patriot's uniform, and we're deeply humbled and honored to be the beneficiaries of his life of service and his ultimate sacrifice. without the bravery of men like sergeant jeremy r. summers, our nation would not be free. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the
9:58 am
time until 11:15 a.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i come to the senate to discuss a pending nomination, that of harvard law school professor david beren to a seat on the first circuit court of appeals. this nomination is exceptionally controversial and was voted out of our committee, the judiciary committee, on a 10-8 vote. even a cursory look at professor beren's record reveals views on the constitution and on federalism that was well outside of the mainstream. but i want to put all those views aside and speak about this nomination from another point of view, so today i discuss professor beren's service as
9:59 am
acting assistant attorney general for the office of legal counsel in 2009 and 2010. according to multiple media sources while heading up the office of legal council, professor beren was instrumental in forming the legal argument that this administration used to justify the targeted killing of american citizens by drone strikes. according to press reports, professor barron wrote at least two legal opinions laying out those arguments. as we know -- and we also know that the department of justice relied on the legal arguments professor barron formulated to justify the targeted killing of an american citizen in a tribal region of yemen in september,
10:00 am
2011. in a may 2013 letter to the chairman of our judiciary committee, the attorney general wrote that -- quote -- "since 2009, the united states in the conduct of u.s. counterterrorism operations against al qaeda and its associated forces outside the areas of active hostilities has specifically targeted and killed one u.s. citizen." end of quote. according to press reports, that individual was the first american citizen placed on the c.i.a. disposition matrix, better known as, quote, unquote, quill -- kill this. however, the attorney general conceded that three additional americans located outside the united states have been killed by drone strikes


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on