trespasser not is potentially a ground for deciding this particular case. .. >> it could have been observed on the streets, information made available to the public. if this case is decided on the ground there was a technical trespass, i don't have much doubt in the near future, i think it's possible now, for law enforcement to monitor people's movements on public streets without committing a techal call

trespass. how do we deal with this? say, well, nothing's changed to all the information of people exposed to the public is fair game? there's no search or seizure when that's obtained because there's not a reasonable expectation by the state. isn't there a real change in this regard? >> i don't think, justice alito, there's a dramatic change in this case from what went on in the other cases. it is possible to envision broader advances in technology to allow more public information to be amassed and put into computer systems, but i think the remedy for that, if this court agrees with the principles in knots and carolyn and applies them to thisxç

>> it is home -- i mean, that is the -- that the end point of the argument that electronic device, as long as it's not used inside the house is okay? >> well, we're talking here about monitoring somebody's movements in public. we're not talking about monitoring their conversations, their telephone calls, interior of their cars, private letters, or packages, so there are enclaves of fourth amendment protections 245 --

that this court -- >> what the question i think people are driving at as least as i understand it is that if you win this case, there's nothing to prevent the police or government from monitoring 24 hours a day, the public movement of every citizen of the united states, and the difference between the monitoring and what happened in the past is memories are fallible, computers aren't, and no one, at least very rarely, sends human beings to follow people 24 hours a day. that occasionally happens, but with the machines, you can, so if you win, you suddenly produce what sounds like 1984 from their brief. i understand they have an interest in perhaps dramatizing that, but maybe overly, but it still sounds like it, and so what protection is there, if

any, once we accept your view of the case from this slight futuristic scenario that's just been painted and done more so in their briefs? >> justice breyer, first of all, this is the exact argument presented to the court. if you go back to 1983, the beeper technology in that case seemed extraordinary advanced, and there was a potential for it to be used -- >> that's true, and they do have a limit. in this case, they said knots involved a single journey, but this involves every journey for a month, so they say whatever the line is that's going to protect us, it's short of every journey in a month. i'm not asking -- i'm saying i accept your point there, and what do you say is the limit? >> i first want to address the suggestion that you could draw a

line somewhere between a month and a trip and have a workable standard for police officers to use. police officers use a variety of investigative techniques which in the aggregate perform information like pink, financial records, conduct surveillance, and under a principle of law saying one trip is okay, but 30 trips is not, there's no guidance for law enforcement -- >> there's the same kind of guidance you have any case of that court that uses the technique that's used sometimes. i think it's used, for example, in bribing the judge case with campaign distributions. you draw an outer limit. you can't go beyond that. we know within that there's no standard. we leave it for the lower courts to work out, and we'll review it over time. that's not necessarily desirable, but that is a method this court has sometimed used, but even if it's wrong, i want

to know, are you saying there is no limit or are you suggesting one? >> i'm suggesting the court do the same thing. this case does not involve 24 hour surveillance of every citizen of the united states but following one suspected drug dealer for a period of time that's less than a month because the beeper technology failed -- >> well, you're moving away from your argument. your argument is it doesn't depend how much suspicion you have. it doesn't depend on how or -- urgent it is. your argument is you can do it, period. no reason, no limits in in way; right? >> that is correct, mr. chief justice. >> isn't the normal way in this situation that we draw these limits, how intrusive the search can be, how long it can be, is spell it out in the warrant? >> when you talk about the movements of a car on a public roadway, and justice breyer's question concedes would be

monitored, there's no fourth amendment search -- >> it's the different between a tile and a mosaic. one gives you information, the other doesn't. >> so does a pin register, credit card statements, all of those things this court held are not searches -- >> this case started out with a warrant. there was a warrant and the limits were not followed, and do this in ten days, and the police took 11. it was supposed to do it in dc, and instead, they did it in maryland. the police could have gotten permission to conduct this search, and, in fact, had received it. now, i take it that the practice had been in the electronic surveillance manual that they had to get a warrant. was there any problem about when

this surveillance is wanted by the government to get a warrant. were they having difficulty getting warrants? >> in this case, there would not have been difficulty get a warrant, and the warrant justifies things beyond just monitoring the car. it authorized entering the car in order to install it, which was not necessary here. it also authorized monitoring the car, any location where there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. this case is only about monitoring a car on public streets, but it's important to keep in mind that the principle use of this surveillance is when the police have not acquired probably cause, but have a situation that does call for monitor, and i'd like to give an example. if the police get an anonymous phone call that a bomb threat is going to be carried out at a mosque by people who work at a small company, the bomb threat, on an anonymous call does not provide reasonable suspicion

under this court's decision in florida versus jl, which you could hardly expect the fbi to ignore an incredible sounding information like that. >> if there's an an know mouse tip with a bomb in the house, do you get a warrant or go in? >> do neither because without probable cause, you cannot enter the house. >> why are you asking for a different rule in this situation? >> because the police in this situation have the traditional means available to investigate these sorts of tips. they could put teams of agents on all the individuals who are within the pool of suspicion and follow them 24/7, and that would -- >> you're now suggesting an answer to justice kennedy's question, which is it would be okay to take this computer chip, put it on somebody's overcoat, and follow every citizen everywhere they go indefinitely? so under your theory, and the

theory in your brief, you could monitor and track every person through their cell phone because, today, the smart phones emit signals that police can pick up and use to follow someone anywhere they go. your theory is as long as the person -- all that what is monitored is movement of person, of a person, they have no reasonable expectation that their possessions will not be used by you? that's really the bottom line. >> i think the attraction to invade their sense of integrity in their choices about who they want to see or use their things -- >> it's really -- >> i think that goes considerably further than our position in this case because our position is not that the court should overrule united states versus carol and permit

monitoring within a private resident. that is off limits ab sent a warrant or circumstances plus probably cause, and monitoring through their clothing is unlikely they'll enter a place with -- >> parking garages, it happenedded here. >> yes, but a car parked in a garage does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy with the location. anyone -- >> what if it's a person? they are home, their overcoat is hung on a hanger. what's the difference? >> once the effect is in the house under carol, they use an expectation of privacy that it cannot be breached without warrant and we're not asking the court to overrule. >> host: what's the -- what's the difference between this and what a general warrant is? i mean, what is the fourth amendment to start was the disapproval, the outrage, that our founding fathers experience

with general warrants submitted to police indiscriminately to investigate on the basis of suspicion, not probably cause, and to invade every possession that the individual had in search for the crime. what is this difference? >> a warrant authorized -- >> there's no probably cause, not even necessarily reasonable suspicion in -- >> a warrant authorizing a search. this authorizes the ability to track somebody's movement in a car, on a public roadway, a subject to which this court said that no individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy because when they go out in their car, their car is on public roads, and anyone can look. the police have no obligation to avert their eyes from anything that any member -- >> what if we -- >> i give you that that it's in public.

does the reasonable expectation of privacy trump that fact? in other words, if we ask people it violates your right to privacy to have this kind of information acquired and everybody says yes, is it a response that no, that takes place in public, or just the reasonable expectation of privacy regardless of the fact that it takes place in public? >> well, something that takes place in public is not inherently off limits to a reasonable expectation of privacy. that's essentially the holding of cats. you go into a phone booth and make your calls, that's subject to a reasonable cause of privacy, but this court with full awareness of that holding recognize that surveillance of a vehicle traveling on the public roadways doesn't -- >> you can see though, can't you, that 30 years ago if you asked people does it vial your privacy -- violate your privacy to be followed by a beeper, you might get one answer. today, if you ask people does it

violate your right to privacy knowing 245 the police have a record of every movement you made in the past month, they might see that differently. >> they would feel differently about being followed 24/7 by a team of fbi agents who gain far more information than gps produces. gps just gives the prox location -- approximate speed and location. that is what the gps provides. it doesn't show you where the car stopped. it doesn't show you who was driving the car. it doesn't -- >> easy to pick them up for speeding when you suspect something far worse happened with no probably cause. >> this court held in ram versus the united states when the police had probably cause to stop for a traffic violation, they can do that. >> that's -- that is when the police came upon the violater. this is all in the computer.

police can say we want to find out more about x, so consult the data base, see if this is an indication he was speeded in the last 28 days. >> it's not very lard for police to follow someone with a traffic violation if they want to do that, but to answer in part justice breyer's earlier concern about limiting principles, this court recognized that although the fourth amendment is not a restriction on discriminatory, arbitrary, or oppressive stops based on characteristics, the equal protection clause is. the amendment stands as protection if this court believes there's an excessive chill created by a law or universal practice of monitoring people through gps. there's other institutional principles -- >> but the fourth amendment protects us against unreasonable

searches and seizures and trying to explain to someone, here's the fourth amendment. the fourth amendment says, or it's interpreted to mean if i'm on a public bus, and the police want to feel my luggage, that's a violation, and yet this kind of monitoring installing the gps and monitoring the person's movements whenever they are outside the house or the car is not? it's just -- it's something about it that just doesn't pass. >> i'm quite sure, justice gins berg if americans pick up their trash and paw through it looking for evidence of a crime or keep a record of every telephone call for the duration it went through or conducting intense

surveillance conduct of them, citizens find that to be in a word that respondents choose -- >> things like -- [inaudible] they won't, and probably couldn't physically start with the other end, start what would a democratic society look like if the large number of people did think the government was tracking every move over long period of time? once that, you have to have a reason for the fourth amendment and a principle. i'm looking for the reason and the principle that would reject that, but wouldn't also reject 24 hours a day for 28 days. >> i think -- >> that's what i'm listening very hard to find. >> justice breyer, two things on that. first of all, the line drawing problems that the court created for itself would be intolerable and better that the court should address the so-called 1984

scenarios if they come to pass rather than using this case as a vehicle for doing so. second, if -- >> the case is not that vehicle. the gps technology today is limited only by the cost of the instrument, which frankly, right now is so small that it wouldn't take that much of a local budget to place a gps on every car in the nation, almost every car has it now. >> well, i think it would be impossible to use the kinds of tracking devices used in this case on everyone because -- >> don't we have legislatures out there to stop this stuff? >> justice scalia, the legislature is a safeguard, and if the court believes there needs to be a fourth amendment safeguard as well, we have urged, as a fall back position, that the court adopt a reasonable suspicion standard which would allow the police to conduct sur valance of individual -- surveillance of individuals on public roadways that they can do

visually in in event allowing the police to investigate leads and tips arriving under circumstances where there's not probably cause. >> who would be, under your test, the judge of the reasonable suspicion? >> as in most reasonable suspicion cases, it's the police at the front end, and it's the courts at the back end if there's motions to suppress evidence, but fundamentally, just as in the pin register example and in the financial records example, if this court concludes consistent with its earlier cases that this is not a search, yet all americans find it to be an omen of 1984, congress would stand ready to provide appropriate protection. i'll save the rest of my time. >> thank you, our questions ate into your rebuttal time so you get the full time. >> thank you, may it please the court. i want to talk about the one issue that the united states didn't talk about which is this is a seizure. it can be resolved on a very

narrow basis, a very narrow basis. what are the consequences when police, without a warrant, install gps secretly on car on any citizen of the united states and want to use that evidence in a criminal trial? our position is that's the seizure -- >> way is the size of this device? >> i'm sorry? >> what is the size of this device. >> the record doesn't show in this case, but we learned last week from the adcl there's gps on the market that weighs 2 ounces the size of a credit card. think of how easy for a law enforcement agent to stick one of those on any vehicle. >> what if it's put on the license plate? is that a trespass? is that the property of the driver? >> well, a license plate, as i understand it is property of the state and driving is a privilege, but it's not a technical trespass in this

particular case. >> i don't own my license plate? i didn't know that. [laughter] how do you know that? i paid for my license plate. >> we don't need to get into it, but live free or die. [laughter] >> what i'm saying is this, that the issue in as far as the seizure is concerned isn't meaningful. everybody agrees that if antwan jones had the right to control the use of his vehicle. the question was was the interference a meaningful deprivation. >> i didn't hear an answer to the question. what is your position on the placement on the gps on a state owned license plate. >> they can't do it. it's a seizure. >> it's the state's license plate, they require you to have, but your trespass theory falls apart wrapt to that -- with respect to that particular scenario. >> first of all, chief justice

roberts, you could probably see the gps. >> it's the size of a credit card, slide it behind the plate. >> in that particular case, what you've done is the installation of the gps is a seizure. what makes is meaningful 1 the use of that gps. >> look at -- you give the state permission to put the license plate -- to have your car carry the state license plate. ewe don't have anybody's permission to very your car carry a tracking device, and whether it's directly on the car or something that the car is carrying doesn't seem to me to make any difference. >> i thought it made a difference on your theory focusing on the question of trespass because it's attached to an effect owned by somebody else. this is an effect not owned by the individual. the trespass theory,nyway, doesn't seem rekick ridiculous to me. >> it protects people.

if you put it on a briefcase, somebody's car, you have effected that interest. >> i guess i'm not sure i understand the argument because a trespass is accomplished no matter what you put on somebody's car or coat or what have you. you can put a non-working device on a car, and it would still be a trespass, but shurlly the same constitutional problem is not raised, so how do you get from the trespass to the constitutional problem? >> as i -- thank you, justice. as i said moments ago, what makes it meaningful, what makes it a meaningful deprivation of interest is once the gps is activated. look at reality, follow -- >> doesn't make it a seizure. that makes it a search. >> your honor -- >> i mean, you can say there's a trespass for the purpose of obtaining information which makes it a search, but i don't see how it's a seizures. a seizure, you have to bring

something within your control, you have to stop the person or the vehicle. what has been seized when you slap a tracking device on a car? >> what's seized is data -- data is seized that is created by the gps. antwan jones, your honor, had the right to control the use of his vehicle, and the government deprived him of the use of that -- >> isn't there a case involving seizure of data floating in the air opposed to papers? >> the closest case, your honor, is where the court called the fourth amendment violation where the ventilator unit -- >> violation unless in addition to a search, it is an unreasonable search, and since you're -- the same is true of seizure, isn't it? >> that's right. >> the more you have, everybody agrees it's a search, so what do you care -- there's a case called whether it's a trespass it doesn't matter. -- the

question is the reasonableness of it. i still have in mind, 1 it reasonable -- >> that's right. >> that's the question we're debating, and i'd like to know from you what they're saying is the parade of horribles we can worry about when it comes up, the police have many, many people that they suspect of all kinds of things ranging from kidnappings, lost children, to terrorism to all kinds of crimes. they are willing to go as far as reasonable suspicion in a pinch, and they say at least with that, you will avoid the 1984 scenario, and you will, in fact, allow the police to do their work with doing no more than subjecting the person of really good knowledge where they are going on the open highway. they probably put it better than i did, but i appreciate your views on that. >> reasonable suspicion, justice breyer, is something the court adopted for limited intrusions, and i refer you to the united states versus place. every 10 seconds of the day for

28 days is by no person's life a limited intrusion. that said, what happened here -- society does not view as reasonable the con cement that the united states government had the right to take a device enabling them to engage in pervasive, limitless, cost free surveillance that completely replaces -- >> how do you know that? why cost free? suppose the police department had two things. we can put 30 deputies on this route and watch this person, or we can have a device with a warrant. what difference does it make? >> what happens is the police have the capacity with gps to engage in grave abuse, grave abuse of individual and group liberties, your honor. >> suppose what they got is nothing more than what they would have had if they had 30 deputies staked out along a

route. that's all -- it's the same with 30 deputies. violation? >> yes, your honor. if they place a gps -- >> no, we're assuming there's no initial trespass, which is the problem in this case. you're saying it's the quantity and the information seized and the time over which it's seized. >> yeah. >> and that's the proposition we're testing, and it seems to me what you're saying is the police have to use the most inefficient methods. >> no, your honor, i'm not -- >> are you aware of the 1984 ministry of -- love ministry of peace problem, but this -- your argument, seems to me, has no principled distinction in the case i put. >> i think i can help you with that. we're not asking to make the police less efficient than they were before gps came into

effect. we're simply saying that the use of gps has grave threats of abuse to privacy that people have an expectation, justice kennedy, that their neighbor is not going to use their car to track them. people have -- i refer to footnote 12 in the rakus case. antwan jones had control of the car. control of the vehicle meant he had a reasonable expectation that society is prepared to view as objectively reasonable, but -- >> he wouldn't be protected against the surveillance camera that could get information and is it different from the surveillance camera? >> yes, first of all, there's a physical invasion. that's bond versus the united states. we have an invasion of the possessory interest of placement on the carment physical

invasion, justice ginsberg is viewed by the court as more invasive than mere visual surveillance, and even with a camera, depending on the type of video camera, we are not saying the police are prohibited from individual video cameras or several cameras to surveil people, but we're saying this device that enables limitless, pervasive -- >> what is the difference, really? i'm told, maybe this is wrong, but i'm told that if somebody goes to london, almost every place that person goes, there's a camera taking pictures so that the police can put together snapshots of where everybody is all the time, so why is this different from that? >> pretty scary. i wouldn't want to live in london under those circumstances. >> it must be unconstitutional if it's scary. [laughter] what is it the scary provision of what article? >> the cameras in london enabled them, if you watch them -- i got the impression, to track the

bomber who is going to blow up the airport and stop him before he did, so there's many people who will say that kind of surveillance is worthwhile, and there are others, like you, who say, no, that's a bad thing, but that's not the issue exactly in front of us. >> that's correct, your honor. what we have here is a physical -- >> justice kagan wanted to know is why not? >> because you have the physical invasion of property. >> oh, my goodness. [laughter] sorry, i just have that expression because i'm reading. the existence of a physical trespass is marginally reel vatted if the fourth amendment is violated, however, an actual trespass is neither necessary or sufficient to establish a constitutional violation. ..

>> is that okay for the police to access those cameras and looked at you moving from place to place? if that is okay, then why is this not kate? >> i terry with respect to a video camera, an individual, this presents a grave question, a question that he not be resolved given this case, but if the court wanted to address the question, was the police target somebody they want to engage in individualize targeting through use of a pervasive network of cameras. gps is like a million cameras. that is the new york court of appeals point. >> about 28 satellites up there. >> twenty-eight cameras, but the equivalent of a camera tracking you every street corner that you're on everywhere. once you have individualized

suspicion like that if a "wanted to do with it i believe you have to have a warrant. >> all of this discussion, and you're going into it, but the questioning these you into it. it seems to me it leaps over the difficult part in your case, the issue before us is not in the abstract weather this police conduct is unreasonable. the unreasonableness requirement or the unreasonable this prohibition does not take effect from this there has been a search. there is no search when you're in public. everything that you do is open to view of people. that is the hard question of the case, not whether this is unreasonable. that's not what the fourth amendment says, the police can't do anything unreasonable. they can do a lot of stuff that's unreasonable without violating the fourth amendment. and the protection against that is a legislature. but you have to establish if

you're going to go with that that there has been an invasion privacy when all that this is showing is where the car is going on the public streets, where the police could have had a round-the-clock surveillance on this individual for a whole month of for two months of for three months, and that would not have violated a thing, what it? >> note. >> why? there is no invasion of privacy. why is this an invasion of privacy? >> it is a complete robotic substitute. it is not a tail. interestingly, the government only cited in its brief one instance of a 24 hours a balanced all of today's. what you have here is i'm going to refer to your descent. >> one hundred times zero equals zero. if there is no invasion of privacy for one day there is no invasion of privacy for a hundred days. unreasonable police conduct, and we can handle that with laws, but if there is no invasion of privacy no matter how many days you do it there is no invasion

of privacy. >> justice scalia, the stand-up along with justice briar who. the gps in your card or anybody's car is like having -- it makes you unable to get rid of an uninvited strangers. that is what it is. >> so is a tale. >> but until. >> civilian from month. >> the question we have to answer in this case is this. if they wanna tell, they want to commit the resources, that's fine. what a gps does, it involves -- allows the government to engage an unlimited surveillance through a machine robotic week. no one is even monitoring. the record show that many times the police officers just let the machine no one. >> where would you draw the line suppose the gps was used only to track somebody's movements for one day or for 12 hours or for three hours. would that be all right? >> opposition is no

circumstances should a gps be allowed to be put on some of his car, but -- >> the trespass' question. >> another addressing it. the search and of itself should be used unreasonably. but if the court was not comfortable with that, if they had concerns, some suggestions, some possibilities. one day, one trip, one person per day or trip. perhaps when you use it exactly as a beeper, when you follow, when you actually physically volume. >> that sounds like a legislative line, what is the difference between calling somebody for 12 hours and monitoring the movements on the gps? you would say that the latter, your first argument is there is a problem with the latter, but now with the former. what with the reason for that the? >> it's unreasonable invasion of privacy. >> what is the difference in terms of privacy? whether you of all but a police officer for 12 hours and you

don't see the officer or whether you're a monster by gps. >> because what you have here is a society that does not expect that the police, the human element will be taken out of -- will be taken out of the surveillance. >> i don't know what society expects, and i think it is changing. technology is changing. we move forward seniors. eighteen years now 90 percent of the population will be using social networking sites and will have on average 500 friends and will have allowed their friends to monitor their location 24 hours a day 365 days a year through the use of their cell phones. well with the expectation of privacy be the end? >> well, for use of a cell phone there are two ways of looking at it. as justice kennedy observed, sell funds, privacy interest. currently the use of the cell phone is a voluntary act. people nowadays understand that the ways to monitor.

but i started my oral arguments with this basic precept. this case does not require us to decide those issues of emerging technology. a simple case. this should they be allowed surreptitiously to put these on people's cards, called the seizure, called the seizure, call it a search and seizure, are : the fourth amendment. >> mr. jones or anybody else be really upset that the police had sneaked into their car and put an inner device the size of a credit card on the underside of the car? would this say about that, other than the fact of the police are wasting money doing this? >> if it were nothing more than a note or on the bumper sticker, probably not. >> you don't even see it. just a little way for the the put under the car and it does nothing. >> a little way for the has enormous capacity. >> this one does nothing.

you would bring a trespass act. >> heavens no. not this little thing that was put under car, not this invasion of their property interest, it's the monitoring the displays. >> the monitoring makes it meaningful. putting it on enables an. >> back to the justice salinas' question in a different way. suppose they could do this without ever committing the trespass. suppose that in the future all cars are going to have gps tracking systems and the police could essentially hacked into such a system without committing the trespass. with the constitutional issue we face be any different? >> as i assume, that is because manufacturers are doing our because congress has legislated. under each circumstance people would know that their privacy rights had been taken away. whether that would be possible to go through congress, i seriously doubt, but people would know in this particular case antoine jones had no idea

whatsoever that his interest in that property was about to be deprived by the government in a meaningful way. unique data. when you and i drive down the street we don't admit gps data. what makes gps data meaningful is the use and placement of the gps device. and consented to of knowingly, and the government knew that. they go surreptitiously. >> a lot of communities have, including cameras at intersections suppose the police suspected someone of criminal activity they had a capacity to take pictures of all the intersection is that he drove through at different times a day .

in. >> they think it would be. >> at think it would be permissible. first of all, you don't have of physical intrusion, unlike this case. people nowadays -- >> you have a targeted invasion overtime. it's over a wide space, and it seems to me that you have to answer my question to be consistent with what you said earlier. >> no, your honor. as i said earlier, you can have an occasional video camera. people understand nowadays that there may be video cameras out in public space. but we don't have any society that does not expect to view it as reasonable to have the equivalent of a million video cameras following you ever you go. a few video cameras, people know they crop up and have been accepted, but this is an entirely different. this is a small device that enables the government to get information. >> what is the rule with no

principal? that it's in a principal? >> a dozen video cameras may or may not be okay depending on how much the city is? >> a workable role and the simple rule that should be adopted is yes. the courts and say that law enforcement, you came here looking for role, will give you one. if you want to use gps devices, get a warrant has exit circumstances are not recognized exception to the fourth amendment. because of their capacity to collect data that you could not realistically get because the low cost, the pervasive nature. you should get a warrant. any time -- you must get a warrant anytime you're going to attach its gps to assist as a facts or to a citizen's -- >> well, that it back to the question of determining if there has been a surge first before you impose a requirement.

it seems to me the requirement applies only with respect to search is. so while it might seem like a good idea to impose a requirement on this particular technological advice you still have to establish the search. >> but if you know, if the police agents no, this is the process. these devices are not used for quick 1-of surveillance. they're used to track people overtime. and ten seconds of the day 28 days. if you know you're going to do that, you know this device has an amazingly in basic power and capacity. if you know you're going to do that then you do what they did originally. >> to push your friend to the limits of his theory. your theory, i take it, would apply if a going to do it for three minutes. where is the car, push a button. three minutes. you say that's still a fourth amendment violation.

>> yes. >> don't talk to me about how long are all the information. you have to test the validity of your theory on a proposition that it violates the fourth amendment to do this for three minutes. >> i think it does, your honor. because society does not expect -- society -- >> you said that several times. how do we tell? i don't know what society expects. suppose you ask people, do you think it's a violation of privacy for the police to do this for no reason for a month, maybe it, one white. if you ask people if you think the police have to have probable cause before the monitor for five minutes the movements of somebody they think is going to set off a huge bomb, maybe you get a different answer. >> you look to walk, look through well established case law, looked through statutes and jurisdiction, they have said this sort of practice should be prohibited. >> excellent. yes. of course, legislature can take care of this. whether or not there is an invasion of privacy.

and they can take five days out of the year. you can't do it for a more than five days, or you can do it to more than 50 people at the time. they can take care of all that stuff. we can't do that in a decision under the fourth amendment. this is precisely the kind of problem that you should rely upon let's just take care of. >> that is the same problem that the united states advanced before this court in the united states before district court. but discord there did, it held a fourth amendment violation so far as domestics it -- domestic security. in this particular case i could give you 535 reasons why not to go to congress, but let me suggest something. what happened was the united states has adopted a shifting position. they came to this court and said, we want a workable rule, either overrule the d.c. circuit, which she should not do, or give us a workable. now they said in their brief, a low-cost ticket to a

legislature. they can have it both ways. >> ticket to congress the other way. can you say that a general search of this, under the fourth amendment but should congress pick out a subset thereof, say the terrorism or whether it is reasonable cause or like defies a court or a special court to issue special kinds of warrants, that that's a different question which we could design a later time. that is a negative way. i mean, that we favors you in the result, but i have been looking if they're is a way of going to congress to create the situations where they can do it rather than the situations where they can't. >> that was exactly what congress -- what happened when the foreign intelligence surveillance scores were created. you hit it right on the head. all this court has to do is decide the narrow question before it, which i have particular did several times. >> i don't see why it's any of congress's business if it is a purely intrastate operation.

congress can control of police practices that don't violate the fourth amendment throughout the country to back i mean, maybe interstate tracking devices, yes, but so long as you track within the state, is in dedicate? >> no, your honor. first of all, let me refer tech just as frankfurters, the long time ago. justices are not ignorant of the law, within a to be true. but other legislations will follow. what we have here, what we have here is a lie face of controversy in which antoine jones, control of his vehicle was usurped in his car was converted into an electronic gps transceivers serving the government. so that cases year. it needs to be decided. when does it need to be addressed, technology before the court, he could discuss the drone surveillance, the balance

of violence and others. but we don't have to. >> a warrant in this case. this is a puzzling aspect of the case to me, maybe it's irrelevant for present purposes. there was a warrant, and the two violations are violations of a statute and the rule. neither of which may carry an exclusionary rule koran is the zero penalty with them. it's not clear at all that there was a violation of the fourth amendment. it's a little strange of we are deciding whether a warrantless search here would have been unconstitutional when there was a more. >> they have the choice. they could have gone back to the district judge and said give me -- >> that's not my point. the violation of the ten day rule and a violation of the steps toward prohibition, maybe it's in the rule, the prohibition on the judge in the district for the installation are not for the men requirements >> that's correct. what we have here --

>> it's not a war of this intrusion. there was a warrant. >> but it was not in effect. at the time the gps was placed there was no warrant. as the case is courtside -- >> conceded. that is expected by both sides. the board expired. there was no warrant. could they just of gone back and say we didn't make it, we need a little more time. >> they could conceivably have gone back and explained to the district judge why they could have installed it. >> he looked at the lower court, you will find that the violation of the ten their role is not necessarily a violation of the fourth amendment. >> i understand that. >> the war does not necessarily resolve or evaporate when the ten days expires. most cases are wrong. >> in 1920 supreme court decision decided during the prohibition era specifically said that when all warrant

expires there is no war. the tender will. that case has expired. we have a warrantless entries in. the government did not have to do a warrantless intrusion. >> thank you, counsel. five minutes. >> mr. chief justice. >> advancing technology cuts in two directions. technological advancements can make the police more efficient and what they do through some of the examples that were discussed today. cameras, airplanes, beepers, gps. at the same time technology and how it's used can change our expectations of privacy. in the ways the justice elena was alluding to gps can be portrayed as 1984 type invasion, but as people use gps in their lives and for other purposes, our expectations for privacy surrounding our locations may also change. >> that seems too much to me. if you think about this, you

think about a low robotic device following you around 24 hours a day in a place to go that is not your home reporting in all your movements to the police to investigate -- investigative authorities, the notion that we don't have an expectation of privacy and that the notion that we don't think that our privacy interests would be violated by this robotic device, i'm not sure how one can say that. >> i think the courts to decide that case when it comes to it. this was my fundamental point. this case does not involve universal surveillance of every member of this court or every member of the society. it involves limited surveillance of somebody who is suspected of drug activity. >> you probably had the opportunity to go in. hypothetical, suppose exactly these banks. the police, a neighbor does it to another neighbor in order to

see where that never. do you think that would be an invasion of privacy? >> i am willing to assume that it might be. this court measures the bounds of the fourth amendment by state law invasions of privacy. >> we measure it by expectations of privacy. that may or may not be controlling. >> but angry with the court dealt with a case where california had outlawed taking somebody's garbage. this court said that did not define an expectation of privacy for purposes. >> it found that there was no expectation of privacy. >> whether there would be an expectation, a general matter. >> i don't think so. in the fact that something may be a tour for a private person does not mean that it is a problem for the police. in the dow chemical case where the police used cameras to

surveil and industrial plan, there was a plan that would have violated trade secrets law for anybody else. court -- tort law does not define the boundaries of the fourth amendment. the corps was very careful to reserve the possibility of 24 hours surveillance of every citizen in their purses and then their residences and say we have not seen that kind of abuse. if that kind of abuse comes up the legislature is the best equipped to deal with it. eight, in fact, our society regards that as an unreasonable -- >> do you have any idea how many cbs devices are being used? >> the federal government qaeda. >> guest. it is in the low thousands annually. it is not a mass of universal use of investments. the fda requires that there be some reasonable basis for using gps before it installs it. and as a result this is a

technique that basically supplements visual surveillance rather than supplanting it altogether. there was visual surveillance that was directed at respondent. the gps allowed it to be more effective. as justice kennedy, and i think justice scalia's hypothetical illustrated, essentially conceding that around-the-clock visual surveillance duties of agents would not have invaded in the expectation of privacy. this court said that police efficiency has never been equated with police on constitutionality. the fact that gps makes it more efficient for the police to put a tail on somebody invades no initial expectation of privacy that they otherwise would have had. the technology does not make something private that was previously public. will me go out and our car, our cars and drivers license, we carry, we have license plates on the car, the purpose of identification. >> you don't seriously argue

that there isn't an interest in who put something on your car and a sign of some sort? >> i think there would probably be some sort of state law possessory and said -- interest. but there is no seizure for the very reason that justice briar described? this court has said trespass is neither necessary nor sufficient >> the case is submitted. >> here is what is ahead. next the first of 2q update programs of the new york times and jill abramson. that is followed an hour later with a conversation. and looking at prime-time programming, across the c-span networks. join us tonight at 10:00 p.m.

eastern for more from our series, the contenders. tonight's program features george wallace. here on c-span2 and 2:00, book tv. and i'm c-span three, history tv with a look at american artifacts. a look at a map of iowa republican presidential candidates are fanning out across the state campaigning in the events of tuesday's first innovation caucus. earlier today we spoke with the president of the demint chamber of commerce. >> we are south of downtown atoe to mourn at the location of cream cup cake, a bakery and we are joined by its owner kristine the market. not only does she serve as the owner of the business but she is also the president of theo thesd downtown demesne chamber. des thank you for joining us. tell us a little bit about small businesses and have the benefit from the caucuses coming to town? >> the best thing about thebenef

caucus for us is that january is normally are slowest season. new year's resolutions, theyoplp spend their money. its normally cold. with the caucuses coming to town people as to allow. people are just out enjoying each other. what that means for business is more people at our door >> your trade. how much more business has your shop scene?reutdo >> we have definitely seen ann buflux, been very fortunate to have several candid it's come, not the candidates themselves, but they're people come to our o doors. they have a rise in the polls.ls they've come through. also during big events on january 3rd. or the media to have a location to stop and pick up a cupcake. >> you have a few employees her at your shop today. a little bit how small business in the morning is fair because of the economy.

>> absolutely. small businesses like myself one the ones that are hiring. we are the ones that ares creating jobs.i am i am able to keep my employees busy throughout a slow seasonghl because of the caucus. >> and tell us a little bit about the president of thehe chamber, what has it been like for the other businesses?for otr ve youple leave, see people transition to new businesses. tell us a little bit about thati >> we have seen people starting businesses, and not necessarilyg eccause of the layoff, but because of the timing. people are just wanted to try something new. there wanted to come back.es. and this is the perfect time tot do it. t in a recession, he will only hopefully no up not down. we see people stepping out, putting faith and wanted to do with their get. f >> and your story personally. tell us how you started this business. how d >> my story personally is that i had a great corporate job. absolutely still work of my company, loved them. but had a passion for baking.i a and the timing for me is that is

wanted to make a leap of faith in january.in jan w i knew will be slow.d uld i can actually learn and not just kind of jump in to a reallu busy season. but i just wanted to let love to do.ed it's been the best decision i'vd ever made. >> because the line becomes a political hot spot every four years. as a small-business owner howes you look at the caucuses from a business person perspective?ti? >> well we have been ramping up, talking about the caucasus sincl august demo we will do and how we welcome people.he not only from my business but as a chamber.ess, w towe help people get around downtown. revamp the website for the chamber and, making sure all our businesses are up today. but also, you know, i added staff and october knowing that the caucuses were coming for the holiday season.r the holida and t just planned to continue ho grow, hopefully this puts my hot spot for the mike. ho about 30 seconds.

what is your best-selling cupcake. >> ravishing red velvet, red velvet cake with rich cream frosting. >> the honor of cream cup kate, the president of the des moines downtown chamber. thank you very much. >> space for having me. >> saturday and washington journal, a look ahead at tuesday's iowa caucus. co-chairman of the polk county republican party talks about the current gop field and expected voter turnout. then 34 year veteran political editor david yeltsin stops by to discuss this year's caucus and the level of violence in the presidential nominating process. washington journal takes your calls and e-mails live every morning starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> this week jill abramson, executive director of the new york times discusses her new

job, her life, and her new book, the puppy diaries. >> jill abramson, executive director of the new york times, brand new executive editor. you tell a story in a book, puppy diaries about your accident. would you start with the accident until us? is painful to read. i want you to tell us. >> well, it was i made that -- may day in 2007. i was headed to workout the early in the morning before going to work at the time. and on 44th and seventh avenue i began to a cross with the light. a big white chalk that was turning right ran me down. you know, i was pretty badly hurt. i was in bellevue hospital for three weeks in i see you for a long time.

you know, several broken bones, both my femur which is the biggest bone in the body, untold probably hard to break, but mine broke. and, yeah, it was tough for a while. and, you know, it taught me a little bit about what i may have. i had to go through months of physical therapy and learn to walk all over again. people have gone through far worse things in their lives than what i did. but that is basically the story. >> it just a little bit longer. 2007. the top editor of the new york times. that day when you're walking across the street, was the truck defaulter you a phone? >> the truck was a fault. >> and they -- >> actually people stopped and said my story about new york,

the people who were crossing toward me all stopped. many stopped to help me, and a number of them ran after the truck and made the driver stopped. >> and how -- and who did he run over? what to the truck ran over? >> first ran over my right foot, which for some reason tracked me down into the gutter. and then the rear wheel went over my left femur. >> what were you thinking at the time? can you remember? >> i can't remember what i was thinking. i did not lose consciousness. i remember right after really well. >> and you say that the doctor said that if it had been 2 inches -- >> 2 inches higher and he thought i would have been killed. >> why? >> because some of your major organs are just, you know, a little bit higher up from that. >> so what happened right away at the accident site?

>> policeman was the first to come to the scene and help me. and an ambulance was there very quickly. they had to move beyond the like a wooden pallet to give me into the ambulance. and i remember being, you know, aware enough to get all the numbers of both bill keller, then boss of the time, has been to my children. i was in the icy you at bellevue. when they said there were taking me to build you i was alarmed. take me to another hospital in new york. they said, lady, if the president got hurt in midtown manhattan he would go to build you. that is where they have the best trauma unit. i got amazing care there. just amazing care. >> you are managing editor of the new york times. you know he's not god to be there forever. what went through your head?

>> very nice things. when i arrived bill keller was already there with my husband. he is a terrific friend and a caring boss as well. i was thinking of, my goodness, i've read in a mess. >> i was out of work for about nine weeks altogether. although part of the time i was home, and even my last week in a hospital bill keller figured that the best medicine for me would be edgy story. rupert murdoch had just bought the "wall street journal" and dow jones. and light from my rehab room i was, you know, looking up everything we had done on rupert murdoch been talking to the reporters who were going to work

on a big story about him. and he was right. it was a great spirit lifter and a great thing to focus on instead of myself. >> to talk about tumbling 100 feet down to hell and yosemite. >> i did. >> what year was that. >> that was a year ago, a little over a year ago. i probably should not have been rage or mountain climbing. i went on a pretty steep climb of a beautiful place called specimen rich. on the way down i hit some scree and just lost my footing. so, yes. the fifties have been perilous for me. >> and then what happened, how much injury did you have? >> not terrible. i broke my arm. >> so this is all in the last four years. >> yes.

the fifties have proven perilous. i have never had any accidents or been in hospital. >> i guess someone to ask you. >> how did you then get through these four years with all this health problems and still end up getting the job? did you ever think this would interfere with that process? >> i didn't think it would interfere with that process. i was incapacitated for not that much of the time anti thousand seven. and it the thing that happened in yellowstone was a small thing. i did not really miss work for that. yap. you just soldier on i guess. i never really became preoccupied with worries that the injuries would get in the way of work and, luckily at the time they have a wonderful person who comes on promises

twice a week and. mainly we went through a time when a lot of people had are a sign from the computer and some injuries from that. so she was -- the therapist was a specialist in that, but she saw me twice a week, and she really help me get back on my feet. >> you walked in here today. >> yes. it's true. >> it's pretty incredible. the capacity to heal is there. and as i said, people every day goes through far worse than what i went through. >> i want to take you back, if i can find my little she the paper. here it is. twenty-three years. you work -- we -- you been on this network a lot of times over the years in different jobs. this is when you're with the legal times on a program with

ken o'brien. i think it was over at the court, and the question was asked, how did you get to be on the magazine? >> it is beyond me. the criteria that they used. i was told there were looking for a few quirky choices, and s in that's what i saw. >> tell us about legal times and what you do. >> legal times is a weekly publication aimed at the lawyers and lobbyists and other political types. our supreme court coverage consists largely of a biweekly column that is done by 20 mora who covers the court on a daily basis. >> what is your goal in life but in? >> just to be a good journalist. i was then editor of legal times .

steve brill had recently bought it. you know, he wanted it to contain very deep and gmc c coverage of the legal and lobbying professions. and the mission that he gave me and then i had my eyes set on was to really get behind the curtains of powerful lobbying firms on k street. no one had ever really tried to cover them comprehensively before. so i have my work cut out for me. it. >> ready you think of what happened to that story? >> well, certainly in justifiably drawn more attention from reporters. i mean, just the role of money and politics and the role of lobbyists as the middleman in that system has gotten so big and. you know, we had so many scandals here in washington, many of which i hate to say i have covered myself. but that has been out of that

system. >> where were you educated? >> i grew up in new york city. i went to a private school there. i went to harvard for college. no graduate school. >> where did you get interested in journalism? >> and college. you know, i think partly i was inspired. those were -- i was in college during watergate. an amazing investigative reporting of bob woodward and carl bernstein. a big impression on me. and i started writing for one of the college papers. i really get a kick out of reporting and writing. >> she did not ride for the crimson, but you did write for the independent. what was the difference. >> the independent was just a weekly, i guess i like weekly. legal times is weekly. and, you know, little less formal. i did not -- i wondered how much time i have to write.

i was applying myself pretty hard to the books and courses. so i just, you know, thought all right for that. i didn't know much. >> you grew up on the upper west side of new york. what are your parents like? alive? >> they are not, which is a pity. there were giant new york times lovers. and, you know, it would have been very proud to see me go to work there. unfortunately both of them had passed away at the point. i left the "wall street journal" to come to the times. >> and what was life like growing up there? >> of course when you are you think the way you grow up is the way everyone grows up. you know, the odd things come halloween coming up. i mean to my winter retreating an apartment building where the elevator man would take all the kids from floor to floor.

i just thought, that is what to retreating yes. >> he said, i don't know, when you for said this, but the new york times was the bible. >> i guess and criticism. i was kind of making a light comment and realize that it was heard by some people and not -- away this in the offensive to them, and i'm sorry for that. but i was trying to capture is it the new york times said something was true or important and my house crawling up, down was the final word. >> what makes the new york times what it is? and for people that don't read it, you can now buy it anywhere in the united states. he did not used to be able to. >> it has been a national newspaper for quite some time. >> what makes it unique? >> that is one thing that makes it unique. although in our audience is global, of course.

, web, and we also own i ht newspaper. that is in asia and europe and gives us global reach and print as well. what has always said the new york times apart is just the quality of the journalist. there is no other new rent -- news organization that has as many experienced correspondents around the country here and around the world. we have -- we have opened new domestic bureaus in phoenix and kansas city. that is unheard of these days. many other supposedly national newspapers have cut their national correspondents and their national bureaus. we have as many foreign correspondents. we just hired two new correspondence to cover afghanistan and pakistan where we remain fully committed to covering that story.

>> one of the things that seems to me has changed, it used to be called the newspaper of record. but with the internet you don't see as many full page speech is any more. smu put them on that -- >> yes. they run online. in terms of what c-span covers we have been criticized. the times sees to print the roll-call of the important votes . and we put those on line. you know, when newsprint has become so expensive that we have had to cut back on certain things like stock tables and it is regrettable, but it is what keeps our news gathering operation large and vibrant and that thing that's most important. >> when did you decide to do a book on puppies? >> well, the real answer is when i decided to do the book that --

the idea for the book came from an online column that i wrote in the home and garden section, which was an unusual and somewhat quirky thing for the managing editor to do. and how i started doing that is that my husband, henry, and i had just done a new puppy. a scout who was nine weeks obama apple of our eyes. i was also sleep deprived and worried that i was making basic mistakes and getting hurt, you know, good training and a loving home. two editors at the time had arranged a meeting with me just to discuss whether the times should consider expanding debt coverage in the news report. and instead of really listening to their idea i regaled them with my worries and funny

stories about scouts first days. they just said, you should really write about this. this would be a good way to, you know, want something new. and so periodically for her first year i wrote the puppy diaries on line. and that struck a chord. and the book grew out of just after that first year i wanted to make a single narrative and develop some of the characters in a deeper way, and it was just a pleasure to right. >> how much did you think about the fact that when you wrote this book we know that you live in tribeca and you have on in connecticut in the have two kids, will and cornelia. >> right. >> we know who your best friends are, n.j. mayor. talk about marine down in here. >> it's mostly about the dogs. >> i know, but you learn all that if you read the book. were you ever concerned in the

position you're in that people would know a lot about you? >> yes. it certainly is not a tell-all book by any means. and, you know, as someone who has been an investigative reporter, i always have the kind of pride, some degree of not being recognized. and you know, though i have a very prominent position at the time, i still feel relatively anonymous. i don't think anything from the book will change that too much. >> what does it mean to be the editor? >> the executive editor, -- >> two is the editor? >> well, i am the editor. i am in charge of our news report. and is gathering operation of about 1100 journalists. so, you know, at the end of the day on difficult decisions, you

know, in consultation i have a great team of people underneath me. you know, i make the calls. >> so what is it like? do you ever think -- when did you think there was a chance he would be the editor? >> well, i guess i was managing editor for eight years. you know, i thought from that job, which was the second-highest editor in the newsroom, that i had a shot. it was by no means a certain thing, and i just tried to focus on the news report every day and not really think too much about what would come next. i am a strong believer that you should never take a job because you think it's going to lead to the next thing. you should do the job and love it. that is -- that was true when i was managing editor. so far that has been true as executive editor. it is a throw.

>> ready you keep your office? >> i have a desk, a cubicle, like in the middle of the news from. and i also have an office nearby. >> you are getting a lot of attention, as you know. a big piece in the new yorker recently by ken auletta. and he starts off in the first paragraph same people fear you. >> that is what he said. and, you know, i excepted that may be true. i don't think of myself as being particularly fearsome or that tough. i have to go out of my way to show approval of something in a news report and to encourage people and be enthusiastic about what they're working on. i know people mobile have found

me a foreboding presence for some reason. on conscious of that and i work to a cat against that image. >> it even says some of your newsroom colleagues consider you to be intimidating. >> yes. he did. >> does this book have anything to do with trying to a house often your image? >> no, it didn't. it really grew out of the online reading and the fact that, you know, people are so passionate about their pet. i once almost crashed to website because i invited readers of the puppy diaries to send in pictures of their dogs. it was not -- you know, when i started writing the column it was with no ulterior motive whatsoever. >> when i was reading all this i wrote down this question. it is kind of convoluted.

what did you learn about how not to manage? the reason i give it back because as you know, everyone talks about your relationship. our audience knows who he is. we had in mind here over the years. what was the story all about? did you really have that to the context? >> i am -- there was conflict, but it was ten years ago now. it amuses and amazes me that people still and well on that. i have had a lot of difficult and very talented editors who i worked under, mostly harmoniously. and i when things from that were very valuable as well as having some complex with them. but as i said, it was ten years ago. i sort of an tired of going back

to that. >> back to the what did you learn what not to do, let's not personalize it for a moment. what did you learn by watching editors, you are for bill keller for a long time, and just watching management, what have you learned? changed the way you approach people. >> i think so. something that i definitely learned from bill keller, he is a first person i ever heard the expression lead from mind. he had been a foreign correspondent in south africa. i think it's a mandela think. the piece about obama. but what he meant is that the best ideas bubble up from reporters. editors, you know, can guide and place emphasis on certain parts of the report and make sure that * is both a competitive, but

like all good ideas, they spring from either a managing editor, an executive editor, washington bureau chief, and that is something i have learned. >> what is it over your lifetime that you have not liked about people that manage to? >> that is an excellent question. >> use the word convoluted for your question. some of the investigative pieces i wrote earlier in my career where convoluted and sometimes editors were impatient with all the detail. i never like to see the slightest doubt. >> your deputy bureau chief.

>> i was at the journal almost ten years. >> here in washington. >> here in washington all time. >> the certain kind of person writes a letter to the editor or makes a call. you have to be motivated to do that. and the more motivated people tend to be the more partisan, but that we do have this great middle of the country, much of which doesn't even though, tune out, may be cynical, maybe just not interested, but probably not all that partisan qaeda. >> watching that now. the country has become more partisan. although there are still vast numbers of people who are not tuned into politics. but you know, the anger levels in the country's discontent about the economy. you know, fighting between

democrats and republicans, certainly you see that is transforming washington. when i began covering washington , you know, republican and democrats got together and had a drink at the end of the day. it was the tip o'neill, you know, days. and, you know, neil and president reagan even had a good relationship. you know, you have seen that kind of, you know, bipartisanship sort of crumble away here. >> why did you leave the journal? >> what did i leave the journal? the journal is a fabulous place to work, and i was really left to work mainly on my own enterprises. so i loved working there. and al hunt was the bureau chief for most of my years there. he was a great leader, and i got a tremendous amount out of

working for him and learn the time, but at the end of the day core business reporting was not really my thing. i love politics. i love doing long money in politics investigations. i just, you know, i grew up in a york in a family, you know, was guided by the new york times. you know, i started -- i fell in love with reading and newspaper reading, reading the times, reading the arts and leisure section, and it just always seems to me that the times was like this the giant buffet table with all kinds of delays is dishes on it. i wanted to write for all of the sections, and i have not mesa to write for all of them, but i have written for a lot of the future sections as well as hard news. >> a talk-show host here in washington.

and going to make sure i don't @booktv pretty sure i've heard him say this. martin van refers to the new york swine. >> jack, well, he is quite conservative. when i worked at the "wall street journal" it was known for having a very conservative editorial page. people would just described the paper broadly as being conservative. there was a big divide between the editorial and news sections of that newspaper, and that's true with the times. i think because our editorial page is quite liberal that the whole new york times raises the hackles of people like mr. levin. >> what is the difference? >> what is what? >> what difference does it make? you are in the business. if people come by your paper, wind is a half to be unbiased? >> well, you know, i think that

reporters should never go into the story with their mind made up about what the story is. to me that is a bias. it may not be a political bias. it can be a prosecutorial bias, but i think you have to go into your reporting listening to the people you're interviewing and ready to be surprised and ready to change the pieces of your piece. >> how powerful is the front page? how long does it take for you to decide what goes there and where it goes? >> the front pages still very powerful. you know, it is a mix of stories but in many ways it sets the agenda for other news organizations still. you know, we plan out the front page in advance. in some cases some of the deep enterprise stories i will have read the previous weekend. ..

one that you can remember? >> guest: well, you know, we are johnny and stepped on bye everyone, and i would say the ones that spring to mind is our disclosure written by the nsa's e strawberry program. you know, just that was such big

news it was a program that even most of the members of congress didn't know about it was so secret, and so that went by. all i remember we wrote the story about governor spitzer's interactions with a prostitute ring, and i just remember, you know, we broke it on a website and, you know, in the news room seem like two minutes after the story went up. it was on television. c-span: take the governor spitzer story. where did a story like that start? >> guest: it started with reporters. it started with -- i don't want to say who but a great investigative reporter who works on our staff was told to take a look at a complaint that had been filed in the that there was

something odd about the proceedings, the actual indictment and to look at in the political people showed up and so he was there and saw that and it was a very laborious process of connecting. c-span: talk us through how many people get their hands on it before it ends up being read, and the headline of the positioning of the story and then the all important how we run it or not what would be the stuff through that whole process? >> guest: the crucial test for whether you were on it or not was do you have the story confirmed by reliable sources and enough's of them, and obviously when you have a sitting governor it is a sensitive subject, but we had a reporting team i would say in the end it was about six or

seven people. it wasn't a cast of thousands and our metro editor at the time and political editor caroline rollin and managed every step of the story, and we started -- i remember joe came in to talk to me on a friday we actually broke the story on monday, so we worked intensively on it and i thought friday night we might have enough confirmation that we might be going with this story. but we didn't have it everything handed down at that point. it was an exciting roller coaster weekend that took some of our reporters here to washington because governor spitzer went ahead even though he was aware that we were working on the story going to the white house. it was either their gridiron or the white house correspondents' dinner. i can't remember which.

c-span: internally do you bring the publisher in? >> guest: i did in this case. on saturday night i called arthur sulzberger, a junior at home and told him about the story. c-span: could he have killed it? >> guest: he would never kill a story and my experience that's never happened. he's a publisher of the newspaper, so theoretically yeah. but he knows how careful we are coming and he just asked me to keep him informed which is what i did. c-span: did governor spitzer know before he hit the streets he was in it? >> guest: he knew that yes his top aides knew that we were going with the story that we were putting it on line and that in fact is why she scheduled a news conference for later that day and the rest of the media had no idea what that would be

about. c-span: why did you put it on line and not in the paper? >> guest: because we publish stories when they are ready on whatever platform as the best platform in the senate on "the new york times" dhaka, on the web site was the right call. it was time and the story was ready to go. c-span: but if he knew about it on friday -- >> guest: c-span: would you also make the choice saying we don't want it on the front page of our paper we will put it on the web site. >> guest: obviously on the website you are reaching many more people. so arguably the impact is greater on the web and it is on the front page. it's just we used to be in the habit of holding things back in the early days of the web holding back our stories for the next day, and we've moved now to

a digital world where the front page is still vitally important, the print paper is still loved by, you know, hour over million subscribers and it's going to be around for a long time that we publish stories when we have them now and they are publishable. c-span: on a story like that to you bring the lawyers and? >> guest: i can't remember. certainly on the nsa story we brought the lawyers. c-span: do they have the power to stop a story? >> guest: our lawyers are there to make sure we are on solid legal footing when we do publish. i can't really remember a single story where they were arguing not to publish and we wanted to publish. the most famous case of that in times history is of course the pentagon papers when the law firm at the time was advised say

not to publish the pentagon papers and even told the times they couldn't defend the times in the court and the times got new lawyers. c-span: to go back to the cutback to the fact the metro reporters called the story started to process, but people involved. when did you get involved? >> guest: friday. they were not working on it long and joe came into my office to briefly about the story friday. c-span: for the process -- >> guest: it was competitive and sensitive so it's not like a broadcast. c-span: you hold it inside even close. >> guest: on a story like that, yes and the nsa as well. c-span: who decides what goes on the web? >> guest: i decide.

i decided only bill keller would have decided. he was out of the country at the time that story happened and of course the executive editor would usually make the call but since he was gone i did. c-span: who decides what the hid linus? >> guest: the headline writers brought a couple of headlines to me and all i remember just approving one of them but i saw the headline before it. c-span: the reporter has nothing to say about the headlines? >> guest: almost never. occasionally i will ask a reporter on the story to look at the head line and make sure it's accurate. occasionally a head like to push a story further than the new -- nuance. c-span: i know you don't have any control of the columnists but do they still write their own head lying? >> guest: they do i believe the right both the had land and

the band that sometimes runs in the middle. i think they all come up with their own. c-span: let me ask you a touchy question i suspect. last sunday when we were recording the store was a nice review on the book and the times review section written by alexandra styron who is assumed bill styron's daughter. >> guest: and has written a memoir. c-span: what is the politics of something like this? we see it all the time in the times. he wrote a book for the times books. here it is the executive editor and you get a big full-page in the review. >> guest: it may be hard for your viewers to believe, but i had no idea whether either the sunday book review or the daily book review was going to review the book until pretty recently. i knew before the reviews were published, but the review makes the call on the book, and i know

there are people who may be skeptical and think the times would never publish a negative review of an executive editor's book, but in fact there have been negative reviews by the top times people, and it would be a major scandal if they put the book out for review and the reviewer wrote a negative review and then we didn't run it. so, the reviewer calls up like he or she sees it. c-span: i did find some negative reviews on amazon.com. there were not a lot to do you get on those? >> guest: i haven't read the amazon. c-span: somebody said i didn't like the book. it was boring. it was just jill abramson saying dropping connections with friends. >> guest: i don't think that, but everybody has a right to their opinion.

c-span: we go on with your career to the time when your enterprise editor of the new york times. what was that? >> guest: that was when i came to the times in 1997. i was actually mainly writing, but on a -- in terms of investigative work that the bureau was doing i came up with some ideas and i attended the morning news meeting this and had some front-end editorial responsibilities. c-span: before we show this clip, what's the exact story of how you went to the claims, the maureen dowd story? >> guest: i knew maureen dowd because i admired her report and we had covered some of the same stories, and i ran into her and a book party in 1997 and the times was getting a new washington bureau chief at the moment, and she came up to me

and said do you know any good when in the times can high year, and i kind of raised my eyebrows like what am i, chopped liver? she said you would never leave the journal. and i said you know. and she had the new bureau chief get in touch with me. c-span: who was that? >> guest: it was like oreskes. c-span: did he hire you? >> guest: he did hire me and joe lelyveld taibbi. c-span: and he was the executive editor? >> guest: he was the executive editor at the time. c-span: will hear you are in 1998. >> i'd like to take the second part of your question first because to that's the least one that's been causing me a lot of pain in the story about mr. glass has unfolded because i did what happens when you have highly publicized case of fabrication, which disappears to become is that the public begins to think they all do this.

and that worries me quite a bit because i think reputable journalists clearly don't make up quotes, they don't make it seems. they are extremely careful and literally agonize about the truth of what they write. c-span: as you know, the times had its own problems after this with a man named jason blair and whole raines and the editor at the time joe boyd. what did the jason blair story due to the times? how did it change the way you operate? >> guest: it was a scalding experience for the times, and we absolutely put in some new safeguards to, you know, actually really aimed at making sure all of our journalists know the times' standards backwards and forwards it have the right kind of training and supervision. and we now have a public editor, which we did not have an

ombudsman or anyone from the outside scrutinizing our journalism. and after the jason blair episode, we did decide it was prudent to have one and we've had, you know, several at this point. but, you know, it cost the two top editors of the newspaper their jobs. it was a very wrenching time. c-span: as you sit here and there has exceeded that of her, you can't possibly know what every editor at that paper is doing. >> guest: it's true, but i still, you know, it may seem given jason villere and some other self-inflicted wounds at the time, like hard to, you know, appreciate the truth of what i was saying back in 1998, but i still believe that. you know, most everyone i work with has the highest kind of journalism standards. and the times, you know, the troubles that and to people and you know, everyone who works there just loves "the new york times" so much and cherishes it and would never do something to

harm it. but it's absolutely true that as executive editor i can't monitor every word that goes into our news report. c-span: for you were close to the stories the were written by judy miller and you can explain how close you were to those, which suggested that their weapons of mass destruction in iraq. and a lot of people when they read that in "the new york times" said, if "the new york times" as saying it and we know that they are not for a war this must be true. what impact did that have on you -- and i know judy miller went to jail and all that, but she's no longer with the times. >> guest: not console for that coverage, but she's not at the times and i was not her editor. c-span: but what was your reaction to that and how can something like that happen?

>> guest: well, it happened not only in the times' coverage but throughout the news media, and it happened -- you know, i spent a lot of time studying what happened because when you go through an experience like that, you've got to learn and there have to be ways to counter a rush to, you know, print stories, many of which were based on iraqi defectors who were unreliable. but they were talking to both of the media and lots of people in the bush administration so that when reporters were calling people in the government for confirmation about the supposed program of wmd, they were getting confirmation. sometimes, you know, trouble confirmation from high-ranking officials. so, it was infecting information that i think was purposely leached into, you know, the system and what i think i learned is the importance -- there were dissenting sources in washington. there were analysts at the cia

who were very skeptical of the wmd evidence that was presented at the u.n. and talked about on television by president bush and secretary rice and, you know, colin powell. i guess she was the national security adviser then. but there were dissenting voices and again, i talked about jim risen before. jim connected with some of these people and for coming you know, stories and, you know, quoting analysts who were skeptical but, you know, these stories tended to run in like the back pages of the a section where the pieces that focused on the existence of wmd or, you know, big played on the front page. but i was washington bureau chief then. i was not involved in the plea of stories. i, you know, what pitch stories from washington reporters for

the front and you know, sometimes the ones i like it got on the front page and sometimes they didn't. but, you know, it wasn't only the times and the times, you know, there were some good stories too that did express skepticism but, you know, i think the public -- the first public editor we had, dan okrent who wrote about the said, you know, the stories that gave credence to wmd, were big, you know, front-page headlines and the other stories for as quiet as will -- lullabies. c-span: i got on your web site

this morning and i was looking around and i wanted to see what you were doing with video. i know you've studied this and you've been into the digital part of this, but i don't exactly remember what page i was on but i know it was opinion and i am going to show you what i saw on the opinion page and the reason i'm going to show you this is because i want to ask you, as this stuff is moving so fast and changing so fast, i want to ask you what is this all about. that was the first piece of the video section of the opinion section. >> what evokes the majesty of our country and the spirit of our people more than the great plains? millions of acres of rich soil that yield a bounty of wheat, corn and soymeal. the breadbasket of america. but today, these lands are threatened by big oil who has planned to run a pipeline street through this american heartland. the keystone exfil pipeline the

carried the dirty as oil on the planet from canada to america's gulf coast refineries and ports, it would firmly wed our energy future to the destructive ways of our past. would promote one of the most damaging industrial practices ever devised to coax low-grade crude oil from tar sands. in piping tar sands, crude across our country will expose america to the kind of raptors and blowouts that in just the past year have brought environmental disasters to the yellowstone river, the north sea, and the gulf of mexico. nearly 3 million americans are already working to build a sustainable future. if 21st century we are not about to turn back now. mr. president, stand up for american workers and our land. stand up for energy security and for the future you know we deserve. say no to keystone xl.

c-span: of the things i want to ask about i know you don't control this because it is opinion, but there on the screen is a very clever, well produced -- it's really an op-ed piece you would find on busbee six >> guest: and robert redford, i believe, has written op-ed pieces in the times and so this is a video version of that. c-span: but why wanted to ask you about is you saw on their you had the times logo in the right corner. it's just what is your opinion after watching all these changes, what impact this is all going to have because you could see where some people what have a lot of money would be able to produce a fancy looking little opinion piece like that. >> guest: we have a very skilled video unit that produced videos and the key word is

opinion. i know that readers and people who come to our website of sometimes confused about that line, but it's firmly drawn and observed throughout the times come and the key to that video if it is opinions and that's robert redford's opinion, and i don't think many people would confuse that with the voice of the news room of the times. it's the opinions side. c-span: what did you think of his piece? >> guest: i thought it was okay. c-span: 21 pages printed out. here is a i wanted to ask about. an editorial ads credence to the frequent charge that the times

news reporting often displays a liberal bias a critique that will not be lessened by the elevation of a woman brought up being a liberal democratic household on the west side of manhattan who worked for liberal southern democrats and wrote a book a asserting they probably lied. do you worry about this? >> guest: i am mindful of it. i don't worry about it. i think one thing about having spent more than 20 years of my career here in washington is that i've had to, you know, do stories that were tough on republicans and democrats alike when the times hired me i had done groundbreaking stories about president clinton's fund-raising access in 1996. succumbing you know, i go into my report and just with a dogged get the story in however i brought up is irrelevant.

c-span: so, why do you think they picked you? >> guest: why i think they picked me? because i'm a good journalist who, you know, knows a good story when she sees one and knows what it takes to get it nailed down and published. c-span: explain that a little bit more about -- how do people judge it -- you have to do it every day. how do you judge what is a good journalist? give me some concrete -- >> guest: i will give you some concrete. okay. well, i will give you in a sample of, you know, one of steve jobs passed away it was at night and john malkoff their with help from steve lohr, bigger to of the most experienced tech writers of the times. degette prepared in advance an obituary and the updated it and it was full of detail. john malkoff has the benefit of

having covered apple since its founding. he knew steve jobs pretty well. he'd actually spent time with him over the summer. and a good story from an experienced journalist like that can be an obituary. there are things i still remember from reading that obituary that might right before it went off on the website like in my brand like a little movie and spleen. john also did a video that was very illuminating. but our bits blogger spun into some life blogging and other members of our business staff and our technology staff began contributing to that and was really good quality journalism. and soon we were also calling some of the best tweets because, you know, steve jobs, you know, really had a connection to a lot

of people. his death reacted to in a very emotional direct way. and so we put some of those up and it's all quality journalism. c-span: so, how are we going to deal with all this? we have three networks and a radio station. >> guest: i know, i listen to your radio station over the weekend. c-span: but you have what used to be a newspaper and now a website with video and, you know, i'm sure podcast and the whole thing. how are we going to deal with all of this information? evgeniy track's? >> guest: i think it makes the new york times more irreplaceable in our society because we do have authority and we are known for the quality of our journalism. i think people turn to us because they think they are going to read what is confirmed and truthful. c-span: succumbing your job is going to be harder than it used to be?

>> guest: will come in terms of the competition, it's harder because you have to keep track of, you know, so many stories are breaking at any given moment. but, you know, to keep our focus on the ones that matter, and i think our editors and reporters are really good at zeroing in on the list. c-span: all right. give us one thing that you have said to yourself that you're going to change at the new york times. it can be anything >> guest: about me? c-span: no, about the -- i mean, things that you've watched this paper and now or the boss, but one thing you want to change? >> guest: i don't want every story to be 1800 words. i think in general we have a lot of long stories that need to be long. things like amy harmon's profile of young adult with autism, which, you know, was very, very long but with every word. but there is a certain lack of disciplines, sometimes a point is repeated too many times in a

story or there are three close making the same point where one would do and i'd like to see a variety of story like this. c-span: jill abramson, brand new executive editor of "the new york times" and author have the "puppy diaries raising a dog named scout." we thank you very much for your time. >> guest: thank you so much. ♪