tv Road to the White House CSPAN May 4, 2014 10:00pm-11:01pm EDT
>> weeks used because justice alito said evidence. you you changed it to instrumentality. is one of you wrong? >>weeks uses the word "evidence, " but, justice scalia, because it was not at issue in that case, the the bishop treatise that you cited in your thornton concurrence talks about tools and instrumentalities. smartphones do present difficult problems.
but let me ask you this: suppose your client were an old school guy and he didn't have he didn't have a cell phone. he had a billfold and he had photos that were important to him in the billfold. he had that at the time of arrest. do you dispute the proposition that the police could examine the photos in his billfold and use those as evidence against him? >> no. that's the rule of robinson, that any physical item itemon a arrestee can be seized and inspected and then used as evidence if it's useful evidence. we draw a line. yes. what is the difference between looking at hardcopy photos in a billfold and looking at photos that are saved in the memory of a cell in the memory of a cell phone?
>> the difference is digital information versus physical items. physical items at the scene can pose a safety threat and have destruction possibilities that aren't present with digital evidence. what is more, once you get into the digital world, you have the framers' concern of general warrants and the the writs of assistance. well, how does that apply how does that apply to these hardcopy photos in the billfold? they don't present a threat to anybody. and i don't see that there's much of a difference between the government argues there's a greater risk of the destruction of digital evidence in a cell phone than than there is in the photos. so i don't quite understand how how that applies to that situation. >>welll, let me take those one thing at a time. i take it the theory of robinson , this is the theory the government itself propounded, is that any physical item, because it contained a razor blade or
a pin or anything, needs to be inspected to be sure. and so you have a categorical rule because of the ad hoc nature of arrests that police don't have to distinguish physical items one from the other. >> well, but the but in the wallet we'll just stick with justice alito's hypothetical they find a business card or something which shows a car rental service can they turn the they're not looking for a pin or an explosive. the can they do that? i think they can, if nothing else, under plain view once it's kennedy. but i really don't want to fight >> no, they turn they turn the card over.
now, when you have digital evidence, the categorical rule, we submit, cuts exactly in the opposite direction. because digital information even the notion of flipping through photos in a smartphone implicates vast amounts of information, not just the photos themselves, but the gps locational data that's linked in with it, all kinds of other information that is intrinsically intertwined in smartphones. like facebook or a twitter account? there's no real there's no any privacy interest in a facebook account is at least diminished because the point is you want these things to be public and seen widely. >> well, mr. chief justice >> so i guess my question would be: could you have a rule that the police are entitled to search those apps that, in fact, don't have an air of privacy about them? >> i think that would be extraordinarily difficult to administer that rule. and
let me tell you why. because most of the information on smartphones is private. much of it is just, like the on somebody's phone and not shared with anybody. even a facebook account is a limited universe of people who have access to it. you're right that i mean, you know, maybe it's people; maybe it's a hundred people. but it's certainly not private in the sense that many of the other applications are. >> think it's fair to say you have a sliding scale and there's some stuff on a phone that might be posted on the internet, for example. the ifficulty with that case, if you
wanted to address it in a future case, would be the intertwined nature of information on a phone. >> well, then, the evidence that is seizable under the warrant is reasonable and justice pointed out that the fact is reasonable. >> let me talk a bit about. this court said the fact the police could have gotten a warrant but didn't doesn't excuse a 4th amendment violation. >> it knows to the fact that this is searchable under 4th amendment standards. >> with a warrant justeice
kennedy. a warrant triggers the 4th amendment particularly requirements so the magistrate says this is what you can look at and didn't. in this case, the prosecution introduced photos but he said we looked at a lot of stuff thon phone and that is what caught this eye. >> how does it work for the magistrate? a warrant can be obtained. but a warrant for what? what would the police have to show. let's take your very case. they have seized which is probably. seized the phone. they secured it.
now they want to search it. so what would the warrant have to say? >> we give an example of a warrant in the footnote of the brief. i believe it is footnote three. and many more are available on the web from states that require warrants. what they do is say the police officer testifies, perhaps somewhat like at the suppression hearing, i suspect this fellow is in a gang and i believe gang members keep things on the phone and these files are likely to obtain evidence and the warrants say this is what you can look at, here is what can't. >> you told us -- that is hard to figure out what you can and what you can't. it is easy for a magistrate but impossible for an arresting officer? >> i think it is much easier for a magistrate that is removed
than an officer under the stresses in the field. i agree it isn't going to be perfect. so let's look at what happens -- >> on the same lines, the point you make else where is the cellphone or smartpone has the person's whole life. what part of the smartphone isn't likely to have evidence? pictures, videos, and calls -- i guess it is similar to what other issues. i don't know what a magistrate puts in the warrant? >> i would say his banking app. >> you don't think it will say he deposited $10,000 in the account and that coincides with
a drug deal. >> what the government says is let the officer look and have a backend hearing which they suppress the stuff he wasn't supposed to look at. under our rule, once the officer has the warrant, leon kicks in and you don't have to have hearing because once the officer does the proper search you don't have too a suppression hearing. and there is another thing in the warrant, it isn't just what can be looked at but it is how it can be kept. and this raises 4th amendment concern. for some crimes, not just downloading the information for the crime of arrest but they are keeping the information in growing databases. >> what if you have a device
that doesn't have the information but like a fit bit that tells you how many steps you take and the defendant says i have been in my house all afternoon and he wants to check to see if he walked four miles. is that something they can look at? >> i think probably not. and this is the categorical rule in robinson where it sweeps in the categorical rules in one direction and i think one for digital' information would sweep in. the fit bit, and this is true moreso of smart phones, tells you the information the court was concerned about in kilo. modern smartphones work the inside of people's house and monitor inside of people's body. >> what if the phone was an old
fashion flipphone with the capacity to take pictures but a more limited memory. would that be a different case? >> that would be part of the conversation in the next case perhaps. i think the easy way to decide the case in 2014 is saying digital evidence kept on modern cellphones are different than physical items. i don't think it is worth going back in time -- >> when if the person had on a compact disc -- >> that might be the same cases you have now. remember the phone in this case had a removable memory card as many still do. we were going to talk about destruction of evidence. that is one answer to the problem. it could not have came up because it was on a removable
memory card that could not erased or password protected. we have examples to the governments wiping not standing up. >> you were describing a difference between the downloading by police into databases that they keep forever. what happens with materials that are returned pursuing to a search warrant -- are they precluded from doing that? >> i take it the ordinary rule is if the police lawfully seizes evidence in the physical world if might have to be returned to the owner but a photo copy or photograph remains in police photos and it is information they can use indefinitely. you have problems when they apply that rule.
the federal government acknowledges it is keeping in a evergrowing federal database some of the information seized from smartphones. >> i don't know if you answered me. can they do the same thing once a search warrant is issued? >> not necessarily. it can delinate rules of how long you are allowed to keep the information and who can look at it or not >> i don't ever remember a prosecutor coming to me with that kind of delination. >> i think that is what is happening in the digital world. >> would there be exitancy that would allow police to look at cell phones and what would they
be. >> absolutely. there would be times at the scene where it would be allowed about and hypothetic bomb or ambush as represented in chadwick. the concern about remote wiping and as the experts describes by many others we don't think it would ever arise to the degree of legit concern. >> i don't know understand your first circumstances. when there is a bomb but you don't know till you look in the phone. whether his associates are on the way to kill the officer. you don't know until you reach into the phone. how can that be an exiting circumstances? >> in footnote nine of with a
suitcase is similar. there is a hypothetical example of how the circumstances might apply >> it seems to me you would never be able to say surrounding situations give me reason to suspect a bomb is on the phone or confederates are on the way. >> i am saying if you had that you would not need a warrant. >> there is not much if the lawyer is arrested and you want to read the briefcase or the diary and you site i think page seven in the 1916 case. is that about the best
discussion you can find? >> we have briefcases with the diary and there is not many instances of it >> it is important if we formulate standards that limit the extent of the search. that is one of the problems in the case. if say, we rule for the government in its case, if we rule for the government in its case, and worry for the federal case, is there some standard where we could draw the line which would result in a judgment in your favor? maybe that is not a fair question. >> in my case, we have an
exploring case where the state isn't equivalent to what it gets. can i say something? >> i am going to say something first. if the phone rings can the police answer it? >> there are cases on that. all of the cases we found were where the police had a warrant in hand and they have been held to yes, the police officers can answer. unquestioni unquestioningly -- >> a warrant for what? >> for somebody's arrest. >> how does that extend to the ability to answer the phone? >> no, i think an arrest and search of the area is what they need. certainly you could look at the caller id coming through because that is in plain view. but the question about the
diary, if there a couple aspects i hope to draw out. people don't carry diaries with them. and it would be an unusual circumstance where someone did. you might have a hard case. this is the opposite world. the modern reality of smart phones and there is an item for a professional and anything. you cannot leave the house without it and consider yourself to be responsible and safe. so to take the world where the police might try to say week get the stray diary -- we can -- because of the rule under robinson and apply that to a world where everyone has everything with them. >> including the criminals who are more dangerous and elusive with cellphones.
that is the other side of this. >> the 4th amendment has a balance looked in. we are not saying cannot look at dijgital information. we are saying they can seize it, freeze it and get a warrant to look at it. >> is it significant this information wasn't protected by a password? that doesn't effect the expectation of the priacy? >> if the othside was saying th wasn't is search -- but i think that would agree password protected doesn't matter. >> i know they argue it doesn't matter but i am wondering if
-- >> one decision where a series of justice noted that many rules are based on practical consideration. practically speaking a person can only carry so much on their person. that is difference because carrying a bill fold of photographs is anywhere from 1-5 and not much more. now we are talking about potentially thousands. people take endless photos for digital camera and it spans their entire life. you don't see a difference between the two things? what has now become impractical. a gps can follow people in a way that prior following by police officers and cars didn't permit.
>> we certainly see the possibility that there could be a constitutional difference. we don't so the facts on this case like that. and there is a constitutional difference from those fun phenomenon. the theory is the photographs are likely to be personal and private so i am not sure the expansion increases the invasion of privacy. >> on your argument and the principle argument, too, a person can be arrested for anything. a person can be arrested for driving without a seatbelt. and the police could take that phone and look at every single e-mail that person has written including work emails, including
emails to family members and very intimate information and could look at their calendar, their gps and find out every place they had been because that person was arrested for driving without a seatbelt. that strikes me as a different kind of world than the kind of world you are describing where somebody has pictures of a family in a bill fold. doesn't it strike you that way? >> i think you can think of marginal cases where this would be of concern. >> i don't know why this is marginal. your argument applies to any arrest and everything on a cellphone. people have their entire lives on cellphone. that is not a marginal case. that is the world we live in.
>> he hear that repeatedly. the facts of this case are not entire lives on a cellphone. there were a handful of contacts. 250 contacts, 59 photos and there were perhaps 42 videos that range from 45 seconds. >> but the rule is for this category of case and this is, as pointed out, is taking on offense like failing to buckle up and driving under the influence, not gang crimes which is what we have in this case, it is your rule then that the cellphone is fair game no matter what the crime and no matter now
unimportant the crime is. all misdemeanors and that opens the world world to the police. >> it is true they will draw categorical lines and that is what the court said in robinson was happening and it is said the lines are based on the generality of the case. >> what i am trying to suggest to you is that you call it marginal but in fact most people now do carry their lives on cellphones and that will only grow as young people take over the world. that is not a marginal case. that is what their computers -- they have as much computing capacity as a laptop did five years ago. and everybody under the age of 40 has everything on them.
>> i think you need to look at the generality of cases. it will not be minor crimes, it will be serious crimes and you are dealing with police doing their job. > >> are you saying we are waiting on the discreation ary of the officer? >> we trying to draw lines applied by the officer in the field because there is not time for the warrant because they need to know the information no -- >> let's leave these circumstances out. that is an easy case. you are not arguing for that kind of circumstances here. >> i would say our argument is that the same things that mr. fischer conceived, the same interest concedes the seizure of the phone and the search of the people. that is need to protect
officer's safety and preserve evidence. you don't know with a phone whether there is a safety concern or evidence concern. >> is there any bases for the generality there is a safety concern? do you have a case where the phone exploded or was used to trigger a device or anything like that? >> we don't have a specific case. >> a general case? >> here is a case from california. it isn't sited in the briefs. there is one where there is a late night arrest starting with a speeding ticket. off the highway late at night. it develops maybe more is going on. the person looks to be under the influence. he is taking out of the car, there might be a gun. the first thing the officer sees when he turns the cellphone on is a picture of the driver standing with two assault rifles. i would say that changes the situational awareness of the
officer in that situation and provides valuable information that was necessary at the time and couldn't have gotten later >> what does that have to do with my question about the a bomb? >> i was saying it had to do with safety. i cannot say there was a case where they stopped and looked at a phone with bomb making. >> i would assume you need to operate the phone to set off the bomb. >> that is true but it is true of all of the objects in the prior cases. once in robinson they secured the cigarette pack. >> we are talking about smartphones, which are miney computers, your theory would apply to i-pads or anything
sitting next to someone in a car or at their desk if arrest said in their car. if they are carrying it in your hand because you see people with a tablet in their hands. your theory permits a search of all of those things. the court has drawn the line on that. >> suppose it is in the car in a holder or suppose it is in the passenger seat. are you saying that you don't want to express an opinion about that? you only want to talk about what is in somebody's pocket? >> i will say the court has drawn different rules from a that. if it is on the car seat and the person has been removed from the
car, under gant, if there is evidence to think there is evidence of the crime on the phone they can search it, if not they can't. >> suppose i have my laptop on my back. >> and if your laptop is in your backpack yes that would apply. there is the volume connection and connectivity question. we don't have the volume question here. but it could be in other cases. they seem to be concerned if you have enough information and the police spend time looking at it they could build a portrait some of the justice alluded to in jones; that it would be equalitative difference. there are differences where one
was government surveillance and then this is someone choosing to cheap the information on their phone. but there is a possibility you could get to that search but it is miles away >> what is the rules? three possibility one: sma smartphone. no, get a warrant. possibility two, yes, it is just like a piece of paper defined in his pocket. or possibility three, sometimes yes, sometimes no. all right. which of those three are yours? >> our position is that the core information like this that is contact -- >> no, of my three choices. call the first one never. also. you don't need a warrant. or three somewhere in between. which of the three choices? >> in between. >> in between. then i get to my follow-up
question and that is please tell me what your in between rule is. >> right. and my in between rule with explanation is that for information of the same sort that police have always been able to seize from the person and that is diaries, letters, all other kinds of evidence, photographs, address books -- for evidence of that same sort the same rules should apply. >> i don't know that. >> i would leave for a different day but the last explanation is i would leave for another case. >> i don't know understand that. you said if it could be -- everybody could be reduced to a piece of paper. all of your bank records could be on you, all of your medical records you could just happen to have them on you. that would be absolutely everything. >> the bank records the police
gets from the bank with a subpoena not with a search warrant. >> right the notion you could get them legally in some other way has never justified an illegal search otherwise. >> no, but it goes to the question of how sensitive is this information we are being told -- >> your rule is sometimes. so i say sometimes. what is that and you say if it is the kind of thing the police could have searched for it it wasn't on the computer then they can search for it on the computer. since they can search for everything in your pockets when it isn't the computer why isn't yours everything? by the way, they don't know whether a call is or isn't going to turn out to be evidence when it is in your trash box or whenever you put it. i guess you are saying i thought it was category two, but really
is it is category three, always. why am i wrong? >> i think he inverted two and three. [laughing] >> that gives you time to think. >> the address book, the contacts, and the phone -- >> that is just the concession on your part isn't it? because the smartphones carry a lot of information that the police couldn't look at before. gps tracking information. are you saying that is protected? >> i am saying it raise as different set of issues. >> it seems to me that in order
to try to give answers to justice kegan's concern is maybe sears -- serious and non-serious? >> i think the court did deny to draw that line >> gps information -- my wife might put a little note in my pocket. steven remember to turn right at the third stoplight. of course you could have looked at information that showed where you had been and where you were going as long as it was on paper. now it is in a gps so how does your rule help? the gps sees if he didn't turn right or went somewhere else. we can conceive of information in which the amount of information and the kind of
search would lead to a different result. >> you can amend your answer. and the answers are for you not for us. but you could amend your answer to say not just anything that somebody could have had. a person could have had a diary that records every place the person has every gone in the last year. it is possible. but you could say something that has a realistic analog in the pre-digital era. we have a problem that is similar to the problem of the jones gps case. you have a rule of law before the digital era and now to apply it to the digital era. but if there is an analog that might be a different story.
>> we think that covers the issues here with the video and paragraphs. >> you are not willing to limit your position to searches that either are in order to protect the officer or in order to preserve evidence or number three in order to find evidence of a crime of arrest. you would say whatever is on the person you can search? >> we think of the available limits. that is by far the most historically based. the old cases you point out -- >> that gets you into the arrest for not wearing a seatbelt. it seems absurd you should be able to search that person's i-phone and you can avoid that if you say the vast majority of
cases this isn't going to be a problem unless the officer is looking for evidence of the crime of arrest. that would cover the bad cases and not the seatbelt rule. >> we think that could be good rule. it has to be objective and shouldn't depend on what was written on the booking sheet. it should be was there probably cause to arrest or what crime was there probably crimes to arrest for. and it also should include a plain view concept. >> there is an analog with photos. the arrested person has photos. pre-digital age of course you can look at them. on the phone, there are photos, absolutely analogous except there are 10,000 and his entire life history. on your rule, can the policeman look at the photos by analog or
not because there are 10,000? what is the answer? >> in theory yes. i think there are very few things you cannot find in analog, too in pre-digital age searches and the problem in almost all instances is quantity and how far a field you are likey to be going. >> the fundamental rational base of the robinson rule, i think, is that the fact of the arrest, this is what justice powell said -- the fact of the arrest necessarily and legitimately abates the privacy interest of the individual and anything she has chosen to kercarry on the
person. the reasonable expectation is that the police searches the person and -- >> are you saying essentially that no body has expectation of privacy or somebody has a reduced expectation of privacy in anything the person wants to keep on them. in other words, one has to keep a cellphone at home to have an expectation of privacy in it? >> we are not saying that. but people make choices and they have consciouss and the consequences of carrying it on your personal the police has always been able to use it as crime. >> thank you, councilor. >> i think it maybe helpful to the court before exploring
possible alternatives to a ro n robinsrobi robinson rule is to understand why there is a categorical robsrobi robinson rule. it responds to the fact when a person is carrying something them their expectation of prives privacy is reduced. and the government has compelling interest that is vindicated during the time of arrest. it protects the officer and protects evidence relevant to the prosecution. >> the understanding was when there is time get a warrant.
here you can seize the phone and secure there phone. you could go to a magistrate and within an hour get permission to search. but what is the reason for cutting out the magistrate here? it isn't the instrument that is going to be danger because the police have taken it. and they disabled it. so i don't understand why we cut the warrant out of the picture. >> several answers to that. you could say the same thing about everything that is seized under robinson and edwards. once it is in the police's hands they could throw it in the back of the car and get a warrant. but the balance is struck at the moment of arrest to allow the officer to fufill the compelling interest in the matters i described. the second and critical thing about cellphones is they do
differ in the amount of information you can put on the and the revelation about your life. but they contain evidence, and they are subject to destruction in a way that ordinary physical items are not. even though an officer has a cellphone in his hand he cannot guarantee unless discunenonnecd there is not a remote wipe case where it is wiped from the phone. >> do you have cases of that? >> i have an dotal reports from the fbi that happened. they are looked into the extent of what extent can you protect the phone. if you throw a phone into a bag that will block network signals. when you open it, it has to be shielded or pick up the phone from a cell tour and wipe the
phone. the fda tried to build a room similar to this in a building where they discovered verizon put out a cell tower and it put up enough signal where it was wi wip wiped. >> there is a rule in michigan and vermont where you cannot search and are there instances from that case where this happened? >> i cannot speak to that. >> you don't know. isn't this a problem that might be postponed because we have worrying technology. and you are saying we should allow searches of all cell phones because there maybe a technology that hasn't yet in fact been used in any of the states that have this rule. that sounds a little hypothetic and i am not sure how to handle it. >> there is clearly the technology available and growing technology to wipe phones
remotely. but the other critical problem that comes about getting the warrant is encryption technology is being deployed in cellphones. that is on the rise. if a phone is turned off or the lock kicked in and the phone is encrypt it can be impossible -- >> let me stop. i have three related questions. why can't you put the phone on airpla airplane mode? >> it not always possible to mind the mode on the 500-600 phones. the officer has a lot to do when he arrest five suspects and say they have three phones. >> if you haven't searched on the scene then the wipe is going
to happen. if you had enough time at the prestinct to put on airplane mode. either you do it at the scene or the station and you have enough time to get the warrant by putting it on that mode. >> well you don't necessarily have enough time to get the warrant if you do it at the scene. >> i don't disagree. put it on airplane mode. >> the assumption that the court should craft a rule around airplane modes assuming that airlanes will be able to used that the plane and they will make the button. >> i don't disagree with you. but you are asking for a constitutional principle based on technology that might or might not do something in one or more cases. >> i think what i am trying to
suggest is the traditional search and arrest include the search of destruction of evidence. that is very real. we are asking for the application of the robinson rule and if the court isn't willing to apply the robinson rule than i think the best rule to apply -- >> that is not quite accurate. what would you do under the robins robinson's rule with an attorney's brief case. >> it would present problems -- >> and doesn't that present the problem every cellphone has. >> i was referring to the privilege rule. the lower courts that have looked at the question that say if a person is arrested hold in a briefcase they can go through and look for evidence that is
relevant for criminal activity. they do that in a way that is minimumal minimumally invasive. >> some cell phonphones have th record and you have the tax record of the jaywalker. >> if the court is looking for a rule that limits the ability to search cellphones because they are different from paper items, in some respect, but not all, that the most reasonable rule to apply would be one that says when there is reason to believe there is evidence of the crime of arrest on the phone the officers can look for that. when there is not, they can't. >> can i ask you a question about that? given the variety of things these cell phones have in them, it seems as though that is, you know, it sounds good as a limiting principle, but it ends
up -- you can imagine in other case, that the police could look at everything. i will give you an example. somebody is arrested for a gun crime. and now we are going to look at all of the various things related to a gun crime. whether he has bought guns, done searches for gun stores, his emails might say something about gun possession or purchase, he might have photographs of him with a gun -- you know? the whole range of things could relate to that crime, couldn't it? >> justice kagan, i would acknowledge your reasoning is correct. it would not be the case of a jaywalking crime or a bar fight or minor crimes like seatbelt violations that are on the other side of the equation for respondants or petitioner's n
narrow response to cellphone searches. in a serious offense like a firearm case or in in this case a drug offense case, if the police got a warrant they would look at the same thing. the only way to execute the warrant on the phone is engaging in a search on the phone >> well they would be looking at the same thing but the whole idea of a warrant is the magistrate says you can look and has a way to limit it in whatever way they feel is appropriate and that is a protection. >> i would not go sure to say the magistrate with narrow the warrant. they say it isn't appropriate for the magistrate to prescribe the manner of the search. there is a different balance at the moment of the arrest. at that moment's society's
interest are in locating evidence to the crime and arresting suspects and the suspect has a highly reduced privacy interest. >> four minutes mr. fischer. >> thank you. i think i heard 4-5 proposed rules i would like to go through. the state talked about the fundamentally different rule and i think the justice figured out that would sweep in everything on the phone. ... ...
also a discussion about the exigency at the scene of an arrest, needing to prevent a password from kicking in. the first thing to make sure you understand is those arguments can apply only at the scene. they don't apply in this case where an officer take thursday phone back to the police station and two hours later searches through it at his leisure. so, all the arguments about, at the scene, and what the officer needs to be able to do at the scene is left for another case. and justice breyer is exactly right, at the very best the government has shown tightly --
a quick thing on the password, pages 12 to 14 of our reply brief we outline how highly unusual at a factual matter it would be for a smartphone to be seized while it's still unlocked and for an officer not to be able to address concern at the scene it might lock later and it's also worth noting in a footnote the government is arguing arguing in lower cowers that even if it does log the fifth amendment does nose give the person the opportunity to refuse to divulge the password. justice kennedy suggested the possible of distinguishing between serious and nonserious offenses. with all due respect this court's decisions in robinson and atwater preclude that kind of determination for all the reasons the government argued in
those cases. finely, justice scalia, you mentioned a couple of times the gant principle. evidence that you think you might find on the phone. there's two profound problems with that. the first is, as the court recognized in kilo you need to be sure to protect the privacy people at the founding, and is a said in my opening the fact that somebody might incidentally have an item on his person, even in the rare case, diary or address book, are leagues away from the kind of information that people have that were stored in the home and were sack -- sack crow sanctity in an arrest. and justice kagan, the government might be able to identify a crime that would be difficult to make an argument, but lots of mine you're crimes -- minor crimes, like speeding, dui, littering, a
person can milwaukee a convincing argument that evidence on the phone would be relevant to that crime. so i think that brings me where i want to end, which is understanding what the rule the government propounds would do in terms of ordinary police work. this case starts with a traffic stop for expired license plate. it is everyday police work that traffic stops are the beginning of criminal investigations some a leverage point into searches. if you adopt the rule that says, even a gant rule, that says if you can make an argument that evidence on the phone would be relevant to the crime of arrest, take the suspended license. you may have on i'm from the dmv telling you to renew. if that opens up every american's life to the police department, not just at the scene but the station house and downloaded into their computer forever, you'll have fundamentally change the privacy that we have enjoined since the
>> working for the broadband plan. 0-ish number,he 15 you have to figure out what comes next. 2020. we were to identify the uses right now. the projections are they are staggering. cisco projects from now until 2018, the demand for mobile will increase eightfold. we need new roads. we need more spectrum. additional infrastructure investment will help and technology will help. but we ought to be looking at auction.
>> the communicators on c-span 2. >> attorney general eric holder gives the keynote address tomorrow at to the national association of attorneys general. his speech is schedule a 40 5 a.m. on our companion network. the head of the u.s. air force pacific command speaks tomorrow after the center for strategic and international studies about u.s. military strategy in the asia-pacific region. you can see his remarks live on c-span at 11:50 a.m. in the afternoon, i discussion on russia intervention in the ukraine and the role of a nato. that is live from the center for strategic and international studies. you can see it at 1:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span.
>> sundays at 8:00, a collection of interviews. >> in the beginning of the war, when you are put into it, you are a freight of holding the gun. when we went to the first battle and we fought, i shot somebody. it does something to you. to say to yourself, it is very difficult and in the beginning. as time went on, it became easier. normalized. this what happens when you normalize a situation, you actually die. bean, one of 25 unique voices. sundays at eight, now available. c-span "q&a,"n , with myra
macpherson, author of "the scarlet sisters: sex, suffrage, and scandal in the gilded age." then from the british house of commons, prime minister's questions. and then the house hearing. >> this week on "q&a," author and journalist myra macpherson discusses her new book, "the scarlet sisters: sex, suffrage, and scandal in the gilded age," as well as her career covering politics and culture for "the washington post," "new york times," and other publications. >> myra macpherson, when you think back of c