you know i represent the state of west virginia. >> i do. >> and we have just under 2 million hard-working americans who receive 95% of our electricity from roel-powered generation. the west virginia coal industry supports families, strengthens national security and powers not only my state but affordable energy to many of our neighbors. we export over half of the energy we produce. we could be keeping on the lights in this room. but i'm concerned about the cost to the taxpayer and also to the bill-payer. we've heard already today that 32 states have raised serious objections. a large percentage of our country's power comes from coal. yet you predict by eliminating one half of our energy we will reduce our prices by 8% and this doesn't add up. in our state, our monthly electric bills are 23% lower

than the national average because our coal is cheap and reliable and very plentiful. and i'm concerned that e.p. has not considered the impact and you've touched on it but we need to get into it more on our electricity grid. you don't have a great track record here but if you look at the matt's rule, that would result in the closure of 5 now megawatts -- 5,000 megawatts of power and now between 50,000 and 60,000 megawatts will be taken offline and that is a ten-times mistake here and the accumulation can't be overstated and there is concern about the reliability, if we look back into last winter and touring power station, first energy and others in my state some of the coal powered power plants that will be taken offline were running at near capacity to keep our homes warm and to keep our

seniors warm. so our hard-working coal miners in west virginia have made our state the second largest behind wyoming. we burn it our family's depend on it. it has a huge economic impact. one of the most disturbing things and the first question i would like to ask you, you say that epa stakeholder and outreach and preparation is unprecedented and you talked about -- i think millions of comments? how much comments? >> a lot. >> a lot. but i am interested in your definition of "out reach." and this is not just me. senator manchin has asked for epa to come to a coal producing state like west virginia to come to west virginia. they have reached out to come to west virginia to talk about the economic impacts of this rule

and these rules in our state. can we count on epa to come and talk to the people of west virginia about how this is affecting their livelihood and their electrical bills and why haven't you come to west virginia like this to talk about this with our citizens? >> there is a lot of what you just said and i'll do my best to respond. i want to mention a couple of things because you raise some real points and i appreciate you thinking about your state as of course you would. the estimates and the projections in a we include in our ria for this rule ill lust rawive because we don't know what every state will do they are also at a national level and so we understand there could be differences in how regulations impact local or regional areas that might differ

from the national and we're hearing a from people in the comments about that and that is important that we hear that. i also want to mention that in establishing the targets in the rule, somebody mentioned earlier that the targets are different for every state and they are. and indeed, one result of that is that states that are very coal intensive actually remain coal intensive even under our proposed rule. i come from indiana, which is also -- >> 90 some percent. >> yes. 93%. and in those states, as we looked at the application of states across the country. states like yours and mine remain that way and their targets are those as onerous than states that are less coal intensive. the design of the rule was to take each state where it was in its power generation and to

acknowledge that. and so some of that is what was prompting senator carper to note i think it was senator carper, that some states perceive inequities in the rule because of that. so this -- we very much tried to build this into the design of the rule because we recognize that there are differences around the country and it is not rm to expect -- reasonable to expect an indiana or west virginia to suddenly become a delaware in terms of its energy mix, that this won't happen. but wherever the state is whatever the mix is, there are opportunities there. and there are opportunities in indiana and in west virginia and everywhere to reduce the carbon intensity of the power production. so that is how the rule lays out the process and to the extent that we haven't gotten it right, people are telling us how they think we should adjust it to get it right. >> what about the visit to west virginia? why didn't you visit coal

producing states? >> i'll be happy to respond. we did have a lot of meetings around the country. we met in many states and we tried to -- when we were scheduling national level meetings, we wanted to have those in locations where people were comfortable coming. we used epa offices because that is -- >> that is not really a great answer there. i'm not trying to be antagonistic. that is not such a great answer. you can get to west virginia, we're not that isolated. it is a beautiful spoft. but that heavily impacted the economics of our state and our ability to compete. we are getting all of the time, you have to transition out of coal, you have to make a change all of these kinds of thing and use ccs, clean coal technology it is not economically feasible and it hasn't been proven to be run in a efficient and

cost-efficient way. we are beyond that. do i want that? yes. because that will help my state tremendously. so let's push forward on the research and development. quick question in the final analysis of the 32 states that have lodged major objections, if the states refuse to submit a plan what is the epa's reaction to that. >> i could answer that. and if i could say, we got comments from a lot of people and because this is a proposed rule, everybody tells us things they think we can do better. >> right. that sounds like us. we can do that -- we get that too. >> right. so i don't have states in a tally. but to answer your question. what the filter act says if a state does not submit a plan or submits a plan that is not approvable, then the epa would put in place a federal plan to implement the obligations that we finalize in the rule. >> okay. i said that was the last

question. this is my really last question. you mention forming regional alliances and there is one in the northeast. if somebody was listening to me and saying that coal -- provides 95% of the electricity in the state of west virginia, who will want to be in my regional alliance. >> i think states are having conversations about that. and states will need to find mutual reasons to come together. they also don't have to. so i'm not sure what conversations west virginia is having with other states -- >> well, again because of where we are and what we have in the natural resource we have we are definitely disadvantaged. thank you. >> thank you senator capito. senator baasman. i want to recognize senator bassman. >> thank you. he wanted to be here but he's at a budget committee hearing and he wrote a very interesting opening statement where he quotes the department of defense

saying climate change is an immediate risk to u.s. national security. i ask to put that statement in. >> with that so entered. senator boseman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to follow up on the senator from west virginia and then also from south dakota in regard to the baselines. i really feel like the 2012 baseline is arbitrator. you have this complicated formula target that the states must meet. in arkansas because we have a new coal power plant that was not online until december of 2012, it really doesn't accurately represent where arkansas is at. we're going to be in a situation where we are number six or seven on the list in reality because of the formula really two or

three. and the bottom line is you talk about opportunities for states to cut emissions and all of this. and that is true. but the reality is the electricity bill for the average person in arkansas people on fixed incomes single moms, it will increase significantly. so look at the 2012 baseline, look at the catch-22 situations that you are putting states in, like arkansas and it sounds like south dakota is the same situation and again i would like for to you commit to work the targets out in that regard and make it such that at least -- i disagree totally with the rule, but at least it could be fair. >> thank you, senator. we've had a number of discussions about arkansas's situation in particular. the 2012 issue has been brought up by a number of states. in our notice of data of

availability we put out this fall we included information from 2010 and 2011 so people could look at how that might make a difference to look at different years. so we are very open to hearing those concerns and to try and work them through. >> the other thing i would like to talk about is reliability. we talk a lot about cost and things. are you familiar with southwest power pool? >> yes. >> well for those that aren't that are listening southwest power pool is mandated by ferc to ensure reliable supplies of power, adequate transmission infrastructure and competitive wholesale prices of electricity. and they are the folks, when you flip the switch, the electricity comes on. if they don't do a good job and provide reliable power they pay fines or are held responsible to the federal government. i think you would also agree they are nonpartisan.

just an agency doing their best to make things work. they reviewed your mandates and produced a reliability impact assessment. have you reviewed that? >> not that one, specifically, senator. but i'm aware they have done that. >> i think you should. it is important. they found that significant new generating capacity not planned will be needed to replace the retirements that epa is predicting about 9,000 megawatts in our region alone by 2020, significant new transmission infrastructure will be needed, currently it takes up to 8.5 years to study plan and conduct -- i'm sorry -- construct transmission and costs up to $2.3 million per mile of new transmission so the scenario they are coming up with is such that it will be difficult to do this as you are proposing without it affecting

reliability. so they've really come up with four things they've asked you to do. and i think they are very very reasonable. first, they recommend a series of technical conferences jointly sponsored by the epa and the federal agency regulatory commission focusing on regional markets and power system reliability. and i guess my question to you is, would you agree to do that? that to me is a very common sense approach to actually making sure that -- we've heard a lot of talk today about we need to do something. well we need to do the right thing. >> right. >> so would you commit to actually doing that and getting the groups together and talking about the unintended consequences we might see. >> those technical conferences are scheduled. the first one is next week and several more around the country. >> very good. second, they recommend a detailed comprehensive and

independent study of the north american bulk power system conducted by the north american electric reliability corporation before epa adopts the final rules and again would you consider going forward with getting a good study a good independent study to address the potential unintended consequences that southwest power pool and i think several of the other independent systems are concerned about. >> i believe that they are doing that work and have put some information out. i want to note that until the states decide what it is that they intend to do by way of compliance, it is really not very possible to do a real reliability study. but what is very good about the conversations that are happening and the work that spp and others

are doing is they are doing exactly what you just described their job to be which is thinking ahead, looking ahead, planning thinking about contingencies, thinking about how things might roll out. whatever the incoming factors are, whether it is an epa rule or anticipated weather events that could affect the power system or whether it is -- it shifts in use of fuels, based on anticipated prices so those kinds of conversations are exactly what should be happening and what is happening. >> the study that -- or the study that southwest power pool coming up with the 9,000 megawatts and again the difficulty in constructing things and i would adjust the difficulty in getting easements and the hassle that goes with

that one of their recommendations is to extend the compliance schedule by five years. >> right. we've heard that. not just from them but from others and we've heard concerns about the interim compliance state of 2020 causing a lot of anxiety, less than the ultimate point. >> causing the anxiety that you are -- >> we are looking very, very closely at it senator. >> and the last thing they recommend is that you adopt reliability safety valves recommended by the independent system operators in organizations. >> that is an idea that organizations have raised and that is another thing we are looking very closely at. >> i'm very much opposed to the rule, but i really do think that you need to really look at the reliability and what the impact it is going to have.

and also the significant impact -- i know that you mentioned that states will have the ability to reduce their foot print and things and yet the reality is at the end of the day, a lot of people will have significantly increased utility bills as a result of the regulation. what i think is pretty good data to show it is all pain and very limited gain. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you senator boozeman. >> and i do have two minutes remaining, and i want to make a couple of comments. [ inaudible ]. not only is it the tax increasing, it is the most progressive tax increase you can have. these are the people that have to have their homes -- so that is -- that seems to kind have gone unnoticed, what a progressive nature this is.

when senator capito asked the question about the 31 states, put that chart up will you. these are the states that are rejecting this and these states have said they cannot comply with it and will not. and even professor lawrence tribe of harvard recently stated the proposal is unconstitutional. she asked you the question what happens if they don't do it. and your response was they'll be forced to take a fip. >> that is what the filter act says. >> what enforcement authority do you have to do that. you can't take away the highway funds. what can you do to force them to do something they don't want to do? >> i would disagree it is unconstitutional. there are a vary the of opinions out there. the professor is one. what the act said if they don't

go forward with a state plan then epa would put in place a federal plan. >> i understand that. it is the enforcement is the question. i'm running out of time. let me conclude with this. there are uncontrovertible fact. there are states that reject, and there it is right there that reject it, they ignore the will of congress and can you argue at different times it has come up and it has never passed in the type of regulation that would come through a bill that was introduced and as i mentioned, the first one is not by a democrat, it was by a republican, in 2002. if it is rejected? so they can't do it by the support of people who are answerable to the people so they have to go to the unelected bureaucrats to do it and that is why they are trying to do it through regulation because they can't do it through legislation. the third thing is it relies on unreasonable assumptions.

you've seen the other chart that we had up here a minute ago. if you just look at it and use common sense, it just -- this is not reliable. the cost -- it would cost billions and increase our it's going to be on those who can afford it the least. and then if all of that happens and if all of that's correct and all this hysteria and all this talk about the science is settled and the science is settled, even though if that were true, it still is not going to reduce the co2 emissions worldwide. now, we heard that not from people really on my side or any other side except we have heard that of course from the first director of the epa in response to our questions and in response again to a house member over there. these things are out there. i know this has become a religion. and i know we're going to have a lot more discussions about it. we're going to do what we can to

keep my people in oklahoma from incurring the largest tax increase in history for something that is not going to be correct. >> mr. chairman, may i put something in the record? >> yes. no, not 30 seconds because i have the last -- >> you can have the last word. i'll do my 30 seconds. >> go ahead. put something in. >> i will. but i'm asking unanimous consent that i have 30 seconds. and you can have whatever time you want. is that fair? >> the answer's no. go ahead and put that -- >> okay. then i'll have a press conference immediately afterwards to tell you what he's stifling me from doing. i want to put in the u.s. energy information administration showing that california's electricity bill is far lower than oklahoma's and that we are prospering because we have taken on climate change and we have cheaper costs than they do -- >> without objection -- >> -- in many other states. thank you. >> and we're adjourned. >> all right.

>> from nbc news.com this afternoon president obama has named joseph clancy director of the secret service a senior administration official told nbc news on wednesday. clancy has served as interim director since october when the previous director stepped down amid a series of scandals and embarrassing security lapses. again, joseph clancy to be the next director of the secret service that from nbc news. the white house is hosting a conference on violent extremism today. president obama wrote an opinion piece for the "los angeles times" today. and the white house sent this tweet recommending people read it. on thursday the president is to speak at the state department where representatives of some 60 countries are scheduled to meet. former pennsylvania senator rick santorum calls the obama administration's response to isis a public relations stunt.

he says the administration is not really engaging the enemy to seriously defeat them. president obama delivers the keynote speech to the summit this afternoon. c-span will have live coverage at 2:45 eastern time. then homeland security secretary jeh johnson will be among a series of speakers examining the links between extremism, faith, gender and the private sector. at 3:00 eastern c-span 2 will have white house cyber security coordinator michael daniel as he talks about information stharg wean the government and private companies. his comments will be fold by a panel of private and government security officials. and later this afternoon the first lady of afghanistan will be attending an event at the center for strategic and international studies on the state of women in afghanistan. c-span will be live with that discussion comes up at 5:30 eastern.

this week while congress is recess book tv and american history tv are in primetime. on wednesday at 8:00 eastern it's world affairs talking about china's secret plan to replace america as a superpower. the egyptian resolution. and the emerging crisis in europe. on thursday politics and the white house. from our after words program with david axelrod, mike huckabee and april ryan. and then on friday, biographies. on american history tv on c-span 3 on wednesday the 100th anniversary of the release of the film "the birth of a nation." the showing of the entire 1915 film fold by a re-air of our call in program with civil war historian hari jones and dick lehr. on thursday they discuss social changes. friday japanese-american internment during world war ii.

book tv and american history tv this week in primetime. supreme court oral argument now in rodriguez versus united states. it's a case testing how long a traffic stop can be extended to allow police time to conduct a dog sniff for drugs. the justice department says police should be allowed to extend the traffic stop for a reasonable amount of time for a dog to sniff for drugs. the court will decide this case before the end of the term in june. here's the one hour oral argument. >> with your argument next this morning in case 139972 rodriguez versus the united states. mr. o'connor. >> mr. chief justice, may it please the court the big issue that starts in this case that whether after completing the task related to a traffic stop whether an officer without individualized suspicion can

hold the driver for a dog sniff. specific question in this case is whether officer strubel was entitled to piggy back an already completed traffic offense with probable cause onto that traffic offense for an investigation of mr. rodriguez involving nothing more than a hunch. that is the question of the case. >> but that remains -- that wasn't reached by the court of appeals. the district court as you pointed out rejected the argument that there was probable cause saying it's nothing more than a hunch but that was not reviewed by the court of appeals so that could still be open. >> the decision of the court of appeals, your honor, absolutely.

that was a diminus ruling. they did not reach the question as to whether there was reasonable suspicion and left it just based on their ruling of whether in fact this was a diminus action. >> counsel, do you concede that this would be all right if the dog sniff took place during the traffic stop. in other words, let's say there were two policemen there already, one says i'm going to write you a ticket and while that's taking place the other policeman walks around with the dog. no problem with that. >> there would be no problem, mr. chief justice if, in fact, all of that was done before the traffic ticket was written. if in fact the dog was taken around the car prior to the completion of the traffic stop and the ticket then, of course, it would be -- >> all right. mr. o'connor, it's frequent that a policeman when he stops somebody for broken tail light

or whatever, will conduct some other inquiries. you know, where are you going? ask a lot of questions. he will check whether the person is -- is driving a stolen car. whether the person is properly licensed. all of that has nothing to do with a broken tail light and yet that's permitted, right? >> it would be permitted if he did it after he wrote the ticket? >> at that point in time, no. >> is that right? >> he can only do that before he writes the ticket? >> if -- >> what if he's not giving a ticket. he's just going to give him a warning? he says to them, you shouldn't have done that and you went a little bit over the line. be careful next time. by the way, let me see your driver's license. that would be bad? >> yes, your honor.

>> that would be because that would be part of the stop. all of those questions would be -- once the stop is finished then he should be allowed to go no matter what the question was. >> is it your argument that as soon as all of the steps that must be taken in connection with the traffic stop are completed, then the stop must end or is it that nothing more can be done after the ticket is issued? in other words, is it the length of time or is it the formal act of giving the ticket or the warning that cuts things off? >> it is the formal act once the traffic stop is done which would be the reason, which would be the purpose for the stop, once that is done, that is the --

>> when that is done is not clear. two questions, in justice scalia's hypothetical, the officer said i'm not going to give you a ticket but i just want to ask you a few questions, it seems to me that under your argument those questions are impermissible, he says i have finished writing the ticket, i am going to give you this ticket but i'm first going to go back and see if my radio check has come in to verify your license plates. is that permitted? >> if this is the end of the traffic stop. it is not. >> but first of all -- >> these are hypotheticals that have a wrong presumption.

there are certain tasks involved in giving a traffic ticket correct? >> yes, your honor. >> those include checking for warrants, checking for tickets on the car, checking identity, asking questions about that and generally with identity, it also has to do with where are you going and where are you coming from, correct? >> yes, your honor. >> all right. justice sotomayor. my question for you and it can't be the formal act of writing the ticket, it has to be the formal -- it has to be the acts related to the mission when you finish those, that's when the stop ends. >> yes, your honor. that is exactly right. >> yeah but you've tied it to just writing and handing over the ticket or not even doing that.

you're saying just writing the ticket which is crazy. >> if, in fact, that's the impression that i gave. that is wrong. it is not the formal handing of the ticket. it is when the stop is complete. once the justification for the stop and the purpose is complete, the ticket is done whether it is a warning, whether it is handed to them at some point in time, the ticket is done. that's the investigation. >> justice sotomayor's question assumes, and you apparently embrace the assumption that checking on whether you have a proper license, checking whether the car is stolen, all of those things are embraced within the mission when the only basis for the stop is you have a broken tail light. how does that have anything to do with a broken tail light. >> those are things your honor that have been accepted as part of the process. >> i see. well, maybe dog sniffing should be too, right?

>> dog sniffing is accepted so long as it is done before, what, before completion of the mission. >> which includes not just the broken tail light but also inquiring into your license, inquiring into prior arrests. that's all part of the mission. >> yes, your honor. >> why won't you make the dog sniff part of the mission and that will solve the problem? part of the mission when you stop somebody is not just the broken tail light but, you know, whether the car is stolen. whether you have drugs in the car so let's bring in a car and do the car sniff. you're willing to expand the mission to do everything up to but not beyond the dog sniff. why do you do that? >> you expand the mission, your honor, for everything that comes within the task that are part of the traffic stop. the dog sniff -- >> it's a broken tail light. that's the only thing that comes within the traffic stop. all the rest is added on and you let them add it on.

why don't you let them add on the dog sniff. >> you do so long as it occurs before the ticket is delivered, is that right. >> you do if it's done before the traffic stop is done. the ticket would not be -- >> do you see the problem is how do you define the traffic stop. you've already indicated that the traffic stop can include some of the questions. you're really, i think, much better off if you stick with the formal rule. once you hand the ticket that's the end of it. then you have a formal rule. you're not arguing that. that leads us open to the question why can't we include the dog sniff. >> well -- >> it's a policy question. so answer it as a policy question. don't tie it to the stop or not. tie it to something else. >> as a policy question, if you could end it with the handing of the ticket, that would be acceptable. if we tie -- if we tie the traffic ticket as the end of the justification for the stop.

>> it's okay to have a dog sniff so long as it's before the ticket is issued then every police officer other than those who are uninformed or incompetent will delay the handing over of the ticket until the dog sniff is completed so what does that accomplish? it's great for your client but what does it do for the law? >> your honor, i think what it does first if you have officers that wait -- if that's the question your honor, if they wait to put the ticket -- >> if we adopt a formal rule. that's one of the options, once you hand over the ticket, that's it. you can't do anything more. the person has to be allowed to go, all right. is that your argument or not. >> that is your argument. then what does that accomplish?

>> what it accomplishes is the enforcement of the fourth amendment. once the stop is done, once the purpose is done, the justification is done. the -- >> the question is, is this very -- just the easiest thing to get around by simply saying the sequence in which i will do this. i won't think of issuing the ticket until i've had the dog sniff. so that's the problem. what are you accomplishing, say we make the handing over of the ticket the end of the legitimate stop. well then the police can just say, i'm going to defer that a few minutes until the dog sniff occurs. it just means that you're not going to accomplish any protection for individuals if that's your position that if it's just a question of when you

do it so if you do it during the stop, before the ticket is issued, it's okay. if you do it two minutes after it, it's not okay. >> your honor, it is okay when the traffic stop is done. when the mission is complete. >> you can't possibly mean that. >> you can't possibly mean that. the stopping officer says yeah, i'm done. i got my ticket here. it's all written out. however before i give it to you, i want to have a dog sniff. i'm going to call in to headquarters, they are going to send down a dog. it's going to take maybe 45 minutes. you just sit there because the traffic stop is not terminated till i give you your ticket. you're going to allow that. >> well, again, the formal handing of the ticket is not the end. in your example -- in your example he hasn't turned over the ticket yet. he says i'm not going to give you the ticket until the dog

comes. that's going to take 45 minutes. that's okay. >> no, the traffic stop is done. whether he hands the ticket to him at that point in time. >> he has not handed the ticket over. he has kept the ticket. >> and the reason that he has kept the ticket is for the dog to come. >> yeah. >> but that is past the -- that is past the traffic stop. >> you're not applying a formal test. i thought you were saying it's a formal test. when you deliver the ticket is the termination point but that's not right. >> so what is the test? >> the formal test -- >> how long a normal stop would take? >> the formal test -- no, your honor. that would not be the case at all. the formal test is when the mission has been accomplished. if you pull someone over for the traffic offense.

and in fact you do all of the tasks that are necessary to complete it. when it is completed, it is done. >> what if the officer says, i need to think about this for a while. >> the officer says i need to think about this for a while. i'm going to go back. i am going to ponder how long it took you. i am going to think about other tickets that i have given in the past. the dogs are going to be here in eight to ten minutes. i need that time to think about it. is that okay because he has not written the ticket. he waits till he has thought about it for a while to write the ticket. >> no, your honor. that's not okay at all. what has to happen is the officer must be diligent. he must be diligent going towards the investigation of the traffic stop. again, i think we're putting -- if i am the one that started the misleadingly of the this, i apologize. handing of the ticket is not the end-all.

handing of the ticket is the task that's done. i got pulled over for a driving offense, then it is over. in your example, mr. chief justice, if he's pondering, then he's not being diligent. if he's pondering, and not being diligent. >> gee we ponder all the time and we think we're being diligent. >> pondering is not diligent. >> unless the pondering is to avoid the diligence. that would be the question. the question is therefore if, in fact, the officer is pondering the ticket, he says i'm going to wait until the dog comes, you are then extending the time of the stop and it violates the rule that you have -- >> you know -- >> i'm not sure. can he ask for the registration usually when you're stopped he asks for the license and registration. >> i have friends that say the same thing mr. chief justice.

of course that's okay. >> well, what's pertinent about it? >> it is part of the traffic stop not only do you have the driver but you're looking at the driver, the driver's history, the car. all of those things are part and parcel to the task towards the offense. >> if you saw the car swerve, what does that have to do with the car. the car was just doing with what the driver did. i don't see why you need the registration of the car. >> what you can do -- mr. chief justice, i think you do. i think that is part of the investigating the traffic offense. those are things that have been accepted and accepted might not be the right word. adopted as things that you can do in a traffic stop. now, there are certainly times when you go beyond the traffic stop and you have the johnson

case, if in fact, you go beyond the traffic stop, even measurably beyond it, then you have violated the driver's rights and it is unconstitutional. the question in that case occurred during the traffic stop. >> mr. o'connor, is this particular traffic violation, was that an arrestable offense? >> no. under nebraska law, no, it was not. it's a traffic infraction. >> because it was an arrestable offense, they could arrest the driver and then impound the car and do an inventory search. >> if it was an arrestable offense, yes, your honor. i think that's correct. >> but you're saying it's not an arrestable offense. >> it is not and regardless, i mean he was -- see here is what we do know about this case.

not only do we know the mission is done because of the tasks that were completed. you have the officer that says, i have done the task, everything that needs to be done with this offense -- with this traffic stop is finished. it's finished. there's no question about that. then there's no more justification. in order for the driver to continue to be detained, there must be new justification or consent which you did not get in this case but you must let the driver go because you are at the end, you are finished with the traffic stop. you are finished with the reason that he was detained in the first place. the purpose going across the fog lines. >> can i ask you a simple question? yes, we've permitted a dog search but in the cases that we have, sobalace and others, it

was done simultaneous with the traffic stop, correct? >> correct. >> you said in your brief, a dog sniff is not a police entitlement to which the fourth amendment limits have been. is there a line that we should draw at how long citizens should be kept by the side of the road? >> i think that the -- all right. >> so announce what that line is. that's what i think everybody is asking you. >> the line is -- i can start off with perhaps the johnson case again. when the stop is basically -- when the stop is done. >> why don't you just do a simple test. if you're going to do a stop, you can't reasonably extend or pass the time it takes to deal with the ticket, correct? that would be the simple rule? >> i think that the simple rule if i may propose one is the same

one that professor lafave has proposed. the officer sees the infraction. the officer pulls the person over. the officer tells the person what the infraction is. he does the license, registration, runs the car. when that is done, he gives them the ticket, the warning ticket. that is end of the traffic stop. there's no other reason to hold the person after that point in time. >> you say he runs the car, he puts the license plate into the radio and waits from the report from the station as to whether or not the license is okay. >> yes, your honor. >> why is that part of the mission and the dog sniff is not. that's the question. if you're not going to have a formal rule, you have to explain why somebody is pulled over for a broken tail light, why adding any time to the stop in order to do a records check is part of the mission but the dog sniff is not.

i could understand the rule. you pull somebody over for a broken tail light. maybe you get the registration and maybe sure you write out the ticket to the right person and then you give them the ticket and that's it. no time for the records check. what does the records check have to do with pulling somebody over for a broken tail light. i can understand that. but is that your argument? >> well, if that is -- that is part of what the courts have accepted as part of the stop. you are looking at the vehicle itself. now the dog, your honor, is different. the dog is different because the dog is not a task related. what the courts have accepted as related to a traffic stop. it is a collateral offense -- or collateral event where you have the dog sniff and do nothing more than look for drugs. >> your answer is -- i don't want to interrupt, your answer is the courts have accepted you can prolong this a little bit to do a records check but then you have to explain why the dog sniff is different.

>> you're not prolonging it, your honor, to do a records check. that is part of the stop. as long as the officer is diligently working towards the mission. >> why is it part if that's the question he has suggested, it's unrelated to the traffic stop. you're looking to see if he this person has a record of committing other crimes, for example. what does that got to do with whatever the traffic stop infraction, not stopping at a stop sign. what has checking to see if the defendant has a criminal record got to do with that. >> that is something that the courts are looking at as to whether that is something that you should be able to do that. the courts have generally accepted that. what i can come back in this particular case is not something that happened in this case because it is clear-cut.

now, that issue is extremely important but it is something that i don't think can be done today. >> he can -- i mean one reason, i think they do the records check the officer needs to know who he's dealing with. i think one of the higher incidents of when officers are shot and wounded is when they make a traffic stop. if you run the registration, you see it's a stolen car, you need to know that before you go back and deal with the driver and other occupants. what if the officer determines that he's concerned about that either as a general matter or as a specific matter, he takes the license and registration but he's not going to go back to the car until he has back up. so he calls ahead and says i would like back up and the person says it's going to take 25 minutes and that's fine. is that a legitimate reason. the traffic stop is not over. he doesn't want to go back. he's alone and doesn't know who these guys are.

>> that's a legitimate reason. >> okay. so what if the back up is a canine unit. >> the canine unit gets there. you have told us it hasn't been prolonged and as the officer goes up to give the warning, the dog walks around the car. is that all right. >> i think that's all right because the reason you have diligence of the officer. officer safety is certainly a reason to ask for back up. once the officer is there, the officer completes the traffic offense. everything is done and before that the dog has run around, i don't think that there is a problem with that because the delay was for a legitimate reason, not putting the ticket in your pocket. if there are no further questions, i will request the remaining for rebuttal. >> thank you. thank you counsel. ms. anders.

>> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court. in order to avoid the arbitrary results that the bright line rule would impose on traffic stops, a dog sniff conducted during a traffic stop should be subject to a reasonableness analysis. >> how long is reasonable? you keep saying in your papers you have to look at the totality of the circumstances. but i don't know what that means. i think that keeping me most of the time and chief, i have been stopped, keeping me past -- >> so have i -- >> keeping me past giving me the ticket is annoying as heck whether it's five minutes, ten minutes, 45. but how do you define that? what are the circumstances that would make any difference in holding somebody five minutes or 45? it all has to do with your

needs, not the passengers' needs. >> well, if i could explain what the reasonableness approach is. first of all it's not a approach that focus on the amount of isolation. it's a question about the objective reasonableness of the stop. >> to accomplish what. >> to go into their home and search their home. is that okay. >> the reasonable length of the stop is the -- a stop is reasonable even if it includes a dog sniff if its duration is within the amount of time, the range of a reasonable routine traffic stops that don't involve dog sniffs so we're talking bay length of time that's tethered to the stop. so in addition to routine traffic stops, the officer has to be reasonably diligent which means he has to be focused overall. >> what's the heartland of routine traffic stops. you have a minimum criteria. half hour. >> i think within the universe of routine traffic stops.

there's a range. the courts have applied a routine analysis to routine traffic stops for 30 years. >> what is it? i want to know what it is so i can complain when it is longer. >> it depends upon the circumstances presented during a stop. for instance a stop may take longer if there are more people in the car so that a officer has to check the criminal histories of more people in the car. he has to be more worried about officer safety. >> how many minutes when there are three people in the car? you got to pick a minute. don't you have to pick a minute sooner or later to decide these cases? >> no, i think in every case the court has to look to the totality of the circumstances. >> and pick a minute. >> so it's not possible to pick a minute in the abstract. >> what more do you need? there's three people in the car stopped for a broken tail light. >> as we said in our brief when that situation occurs courts have upheld a stop up to 35 minutes. >> the problem -- i have a great idea.

why don't we say taking your test, that the stop, you can do whatever is normal there, but it cannot be prolonged more than the time reasonably required to complete the mission which happens to be giving a temporary traffic ticket or we could say it cannot last longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop. it's language from two cases we already set. are you saying anything different? i don't think so. if so, what? if not, since this is a case where apparently the lower courts have said it did last longer than was reasonably necessary because the policeman said that's why in effect said according to the judge, i called the dog after the stop was over for something like that. we cite those two cases. say those are the tests. affirm or reverse, i guess.

qed. good-bye, we say to all the litigants and hope you're happy. when i hear you say that, it sounds like that's what you think we should do, but i suspect you don't but i want to know why. >> well, we think the amount of time reasonably required to complete a traffic stop is the duration it takes, looking to other similar stops, it's the duration. >> it is the time necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop or it is the time that is reasonably required to complete the mission. we can't do better than that. how can we? we're not traffic policemen and our experience on stops comes from unfortunately being the stopee rather than the stopper. >> right and stop and fall within that reasonable time frame. >> okay. so that's the end of this. of course if it's in the middle of it and you call the dog but you can't prolong it beyond the time reasonably necessary.

now, i have said that several times. i think you may agree with that. >> if you do agree with it, here it was prolonged more than reasonably necessary at least that's what they found. end of case. >> i think looking to whether the dog sniff occurs before or after the traffic ticket is given, well give significance to the officers sequencing decision when he gives the ticket. as i understand petitioners position it is in the midst of a traffic stop, let's say it lasts ten minutes, the officer spends one minute on a traffic stop that is okay even though it has incrementally increased the length of a stop but then you have the same stop where the officer gives the ticket first and adds -- >> there are a lot of problems with any rule based on reasonableness and of course, there will be difficult problems. but here we've said twice that once the stop is over, ie, goes beyond the time reasonably necessary to complete the

mission, you cannot call in the dogs. and before you can. now, of course there will be anomalies in that respect. of course there can be bad faith exercises. of course there can be confusion as to which is which but that's inevitable in the situation and we can't do anything about it. now, what can you suggest that would just help us and show we could do something about it? >> well, i think it's a pretty serious anomaly. >> well, it may be but i'm asking you what is it that we could say better then the language of the two cases? i'm not denying there is a problem with what you just said. there is. you might decide to do it beforehand and do all kinds of excuses. you know people everyday of the week make up reasons but if you want a better rule than the one laid down in the two cases, what? >> well, i think there are two ways to understand the language

in the cases you're referring to. one as i think you're suggesting that the time reasonably required to complete the traffic violation means that time and nothing else. so that any delay attributable to a dog sniff, as opposed -- >> no, i don't think you have to do that. you get into arguments about it. was it reasonably necessary it's cannot be prolonged beyond the time reasonably necessary. it is difficult sometimes to decide what is reasonably necessary. >> once we accept that a stop can be incrementally prolonged for purposes of a dog sniff, if that dog sniff occurs during the stop, so that the officer is doing nothing but that dog sniff. he's adding one minute to a ten minute dog sniff then the question would be whether that 11 minute total stop is reasonable. that's the exact same intrusion that would occur if the officer decided to do all of the traffic related tasks first. that took ten minutes and then he it a dog sniff immediately

afterwards. >> can i get a little clarification on your argument. if i understand what you've been saying, you are accepting the idea. that the dog sniff is something that's extraneous to the mission of the stop. is that correct? >> we're not suggesting that's an ordinary incident. >> it's not an ordinary incident. >> but since the court said that a dog sniff is permissible to performing stops, sometimes we think that the analysis as to when it is permissible. >> right i'm not getting there yet i just want to understand because some of the questions have focused on what is a stop? what's the mission of a stop? what's entailed in the normal mission of the stop? and you're not contesting they dog sniff is not something that's entailed in a normal stop even though there might be occasions when you can do a dog sniff attendant to a stop. >> i think that's right but as other members of the court have suggested, once there's probable

cause to stop someone. >> suppose you have a police department, it's in a small state, they have every police cruiser has a canine and they make it just as common to, you know, to check on the license plate, call in to see if the person has any prior convictions, so also, they always take the dog around the car. it's a routine part of a traffic stop. >> i think it would be permissible for them to do that as long as within each stop it fell within the reasonable amount of time it would take for a reasonable traffic stop. >> including the time for the dog sniff. >> i think we would not include the dog sniff. >> why not? >> well, i think -- >> that's what a routine traffic stop is for that jurisdiction. >> well, i think our point is once there's probable cause to perform a site of legitimate

investigative inquiries that if the officer can do other investigations during that time then it ought to be constitutionally reasonable to do that. that's what the courts of appeals have held. >> okay. but i thought the position that i have tried to say -- let me state it more clearly. i think. it is unlawful to have the dog sniff where the dog sniff unreasonably prolongs the stop. is that okay with the government if i write those words in an opinion. >> that's right. we don't think a dog sniff unreasonably prolongs a stop. >> how if the ticket writing is over and there is nothing else to do and the policeman says hey, this is over. at that point, has it not

unreasonably prolonged the stop if the sniff takes place afterwards? >> i don't think so. >> because -- it takes only two minutes. >> that's not unreasonable, right. big deal the dog walks around the car for two minutes. it's only a violation of the fourth amendment for two minutes. right? the reason i don't understand -- i don't understand when you talk about prolonging the stop. are you talking about here is the amount of time that you are needing for the traffic stop and you're allowed to prolong it sometime after that or is it that the sniff is part of the time for the stop so you're not prolonging it at all, you're including it. you're wrapping it up in the stop. >> no, i think we admit that the dog sniff can prolong the traffic stop that it is not routine part of every single traffic stop. we're not trying to make that argument but i do think that just because a dog sniff prolongs a traffic stop by some incremental amount of time doesn't mean the traffic stop unreasonable.

>> it can prolong it. >> what else besides we have the extraneous dog sniff doesn't relate to the traffic violation, what else? could the police say i have taken the time i have needed to look into this traffic violation but we're in a high crime neighborhood. so i would like to keep this driver a bit longer. so i can interrogate him about what other things he might have been doing. it's not going to take eight minutes. but traffic stops, taking care of that, and now instead of having the dog come, the police officer says i have a few questions i want to ask you.

>> the court held in arizona versus johnson that questioning about an unrelated matter is not -- like a dog sniff, it is not an independent fourth amendment intrusion. again, i think the only interest at stake from the individual's point of view is the interest against unreasonable delay. and since that is the case, i think that the officer can incrementally extend the stop so long as the duration of the stop -- >> what about this -- i see your problem is you said well, it can't prolong the stop, the traffic stop more than reasonably -- it has to be -- take the time reasonably required to complete the mission. that's what it says, complete the mission. so we have the intermission prolongation which has to be reasonable and we have complete the mission. so complete the mission.

once the mission is completed, it's over. that's language from the opinion, too. complete, complete. good-bye, over. at that point, it becomes a violation of the fourth amendment. >> and that will lead to arbitrary results. if i could give you a scenario where that could occur and i tell you why officers often need to end up to do a dog sniff after the ticket. the hypothetical is you imagine you have two officers conducting the stop and the first officer is explaining the ticket and the second is performing the dog sniff around the dog. if the officer performing the ticket ends first and the dog sniff takes 30 seconds. i don't think there's any reason to say that that stop that lasted a total of ten minutes has gone on longer. >> i have a real fundamental question, this line is only here because we've now created a fourth amendment entitlement to

search for drugs by using dogs whenever anybody is stopped because that's what you're proposing. is that really what the fourth amendment should permit? >> i don't think it's an entitlement. once the court said that it is permissible in some circumstances. >> why don't we keep it there which is when it's being done simultaneously with writing the ticket. if it's not, then it's unlawful. >> well, because that leads to arbitrary results as i was explaining with justice beyer. >> it's not arbitrary, the fourth amendment is arbitrary but it's nature. it says, you can't search unless you have probable cause to search. >> well, petitioners rule would say that the hypothetical i propose is impermissible in every circumstance that even a

30 second extension of a short traffic stop is always unreasonable even if that stop falls within the amount of time it usually takes to do routine traffic stops. >> ms. anders? >> you know, i think i read it differently than you. here is what i think they agree with you on and doesn't. they agree that a dog sniff is definitely not part of a traffic stop. they definitely say that even though a dog sniff is not part of the mission of traffic stop, we're going to allow a dog sniff if it doesn't extend the traffic stop. if there are two officers and there's some other reason why you're not being detained a moment longer because of the dog sniff and cabales basically says sure, no harm no, foul on that

one, but you're saying cabales gives you this extra leeway to detain people even though it is longer than an ordinary traffic stop would take. i think that's just not right. i mean i think that reasonableness language in cabales is all about its an extra limitation the court says. it says like don't think just because this officer was really slow and it took a really long time to do the traffic stop and he was able because of that to get another officer in and do a dog sniff and it was all -- it's like an additional limitation that no, you have to be diligent and you have to be reasonable in the way you conduct the traffic stop. if you're not, the dog sniff can't come in even though it was conducted during the time the traffic stop occurred.

but that's additional constraint. it's not some kind of extra leeway for the police officers to do things outside the bounds of the traffic stop itself. >> well, i think that's one way to read the language. the reason we don't think it's the right way is we know that a dog sniff is not an independent fourth amendment intrusion. it's not a search. we also know that it doesn't violate any independent scope limitation. >> it's not a search but the theory and with all of our cases is that you really can't detain somebody if you don't have some kind of objective reasonable basis for doing so. and that any detention and, you know, it might be ten minutes, it might be five minutes or two minutes without that kind of basis, is a fourth amendment violation. >> but once the individual is already being detained for a traffic stop on probable cause, i think the implication is if the dog sniff takes any time than the intrusion we're talking about is the incremental delay. it's a temporal intrusion. so from the individual's perspective, her interest --

it's the same in avoiding the dog sniff as it is in avoiding a warrant check or any avoidance. because that's the case, we think delays attributable to dog sniffs should be treated like a warrant check or anything else. >> you've used several times the phrase incremental. i sense that it being less than, right? if the actual traffic stop is five minutes, then you wouldn't say a 15 minute dog sniff is incremental. so does the dog sniff have to be less than the traffic stop? >> i think that one of the things that courts should look to is the relative proportion of time of the dog sniff to the rest of the stop. the reason i think that's relevant is the officer, this is the case in routine traffic stops as well, the officer has to be reasonably diligent. i think they can take into account whether the officer is predominantly working the traffic violation. if he's able to do a dog sniff within a reasonable amount of time and not have the traffic

stop exceed the duration of a reasonable routine traffic stop then he ought to be able to do that. >> is that almost always the case that the dog sniff is going to take longer than the traffic stop? i would assume so, the officer says license and registration. the dog sniff is something all together assuming the dog is there. if it really has to be incremental, i'm not sure it's hardly ever going to be reasonable. >> well, the dog sniff itself is a matter of seconds. in the cases it takes anywhere from 30 to 90 seconds to do a dog sniff so it is something that can be an incremental delay. >> if the dog happens to be there, i guess, well, even in a situation where the dog isn't there already. if the officer calls for the dog early enough and the dog arrives. there are situations in the cases we cited this and note 20 of our brief you have the dog

arriving just as the officer is about to give the ticket. so that is a scenario that can occur. i do think there are several reasons why an officer may want to give the ticket first and then do the dog sniff immediately and one is officer safety. how he orders and performs his tasks is infused with officer safety considerations so it can be a safer thing to ask to use the ticket, the need to explain the ticket as a nonconfrontational way. >> i see. another aspect is i was seeing it the way justice kagen described it. one virtue of that but you may not think it is, is administrative. what do you tell the police department, well, when you're in traffic stops, can you use dogs to sniff? >> yeah. you can. but remember, once it's over, the traffic stop, it's over. done. finished. and by the way, if it isn't over yet, you still may get into trouble if you're unreasonably prolonged the stop just to get

the sniff. now that seems pretty easy to explain. it's fairly bright line. as soon as you get into this other, just leaving it totally open, there's no check, really on the -- not too much of one. now, i'm putting that to get your response. >> so as i understand it, you're saying that -- this is subject to a reasonableness analysis that the officer can do a dog sniff and he can prolong the stop -- >> i was saying two parts. part one, traffic stoppers, you can use a dog sniff when you stop but not once the stop is over. unless you have cause or something. and during the stop, that's part two, you can't prolong it but for a reason to have to do it all within a reasonable time okay. you can't unreasonably prolong it to get your dog in. you tell those two things. once you've told them the two

things, they've got it in their heads. when this is over, good-bye dog. >> when it's not over, they better be careful not to unreasonably to prolong it. now, they will understand that and it will be both protecting what the fourth amendment protects also, i think, giving them enough leeway to conduct a traffic stop. >> well, so that makes the officer's sequencing decision entirely dispositive of whether it can occur. but from the officer's perspective, i think there's an interest in officers having some leeway to sequence the traffic stop. >> the way justice breyer has said this, what he's saying is you can't unreasonably prolong it. you can't hold a person any measurable time that was in there to get the dog. and yes, it has to do with the resources the police department

but we can't keep bending the fourth amendment to the resources of the law enforcement particularly when this stop is not -- is not incidental to the purpose of the stop. it's purely to help the police get more criminals, yes but then the fourth amendment becomes a useless piece of paper. >> i think if you take what i said and take your answer, i have to say your answer is right. it's just a bad effect of my rule. the virtue of the two part rule is what we said is the virtue of it. it's like many cases, there just isn't much more to say. am i willing to run this, they might purposely change the sequence. they might. that's true. somebody might. i don't know what to do about that. the answer is i couldn't do anything about that. >> well, we think there's a law enforcement interest in officers having leeway to sequence the stop the way they see fit. there's a reason the officer might want to give the ticket

contemporaneously before or after. >> suppose mr. anders, with hypotheticals, the police pulls somebody over and starts the process and then the police officer says, you know, i'd like a cigarette break now. cigarette probably takes about as long as the dog sniff took in this and he just, you know, smokes a cigarette and he goes back to work. all right, would you say that that was unconstitutional prolongation of the stop? >> well, an officer always has to be reasonably diligent so if the officer takes breaks for no valid reasons the stop would become unreasonable. >> okay so it would become unreasonable because there he was, he wasn't doing anything related to the mission of the stop. that's true, if he gave the ticket and then said, i want you to stay while i take a cigarette break or it's true if he did it before he gave the ticket,

either way. i guess what i'm saying to you is i kind of think it's the same thing is once you've acknowledged that the dog sniff is something that's extraneous to the stop itself, it's obviously more helpful to the police than a cigarette break but it's extraneous to the stop itself, then the same rules apply as if the police officer had just taken a moratorium. >> we don't expect them to ignore potential evidence of criminal behavior. in fact they'd be remiss if this did. if the officer is able to do a dog sniff within a reasonable amount of time it ought to be constitutional -- >> but then you really are saying because we have a reason to pull you over for a traffic stop that gives us some extra time to start questioning you

about other law enforcement related things and to do other law enforcement related business. and i never thought that that was the rule. i always thought is that once the objective basis for the stop dissipated, that was it. >> i think if you take unrelated questioning for instance, questioning about other criminal activity, i think there's a strong law enforcement interest in officers having some leeway to pursue this within a stop. >> you told me that the officer could do that at least that's what i understood your answer to be. >> that's right. the officer can do that. i think it's important that the officer have some leeway so long as the overall time remains reasonable. if you think about questioning if the officer starts a question about where the person is going, we don't want officers to make finely tuned judgments in the moment about whether the next question he asks is related to

the traffic stop or not that's why we think there needs to be some leeway for them to pursue the things that they need to observe so long as they can do that within a reasonable amount of time. we think it should be constitutionally reasonable to do that. we always say the reasonable analysis allows them to collaborate. under petitioners view, even 30 seconds of a traffic stop for a dog sniff would be unreasonable in every case. >> what your rule will lead to something along the lines, everybody will decide 30 or 40 minutes is something you said in your brief is reasonable for a traffic stop. and if you see a tail light violation, that's 40 minutes of free time for the police officers to investigate any crimes that they want because they can do it all in the range of what you've decided is kind of the reasonable traffic stop. >> i don't think that's how we envision the analysis going because the ultimate length of

time has to be within the duration of a routine traffic stop that doesn't involve a traffic sniff. that will vary based on the circumstances. so what we think courts can do is they can look at what the officer actually did and look to stops involving similar circumstances but not dog sniffs and determine whether the officer was able to do the whole thing within a reasonable amount of time. i think that's essentially what the court contemplated that with these fourth amendment inquiries that they are fact specific but the harder cases will be appealed and there will start being guidelines. the courts can look to similar case p.m. we think the same thing can happen here. it already has happened with respect to unrelated questioning. the court of appeals said you can have a traffic stop with questioning and how long did the questioning take. how long is the overall stop. was the officers diligent? the same thing should happen here whether the dog sniff is before or after the ticket.

any further questions? >> thank you miss anders. i think the point was well made -- >> what do you think about her response? because i thought it was -- i mean she has an interesting point, an important point. she said you know, the trouble with what i said which was you think is okay, she said it's -- here's what's really going to happen. is that the police will think, grow, i just better be sure those dogs get here in time. and so what they'll do is tend to prolong the stops. and they'll want to be sure the dogs get there. so if you really added all of this up and thought about it even experiment they're going to end up waiting longer and

being in custody in a sense longer than if we follow her approach. and her approach is yourself the say, hey, apply reasonableness across the board. a few extra minutes isn't that big of a deal. i took her answer to be something that like. and i thought it was -- it's a point. it's a point. so what do you think? >> well we hope that if you look at officer's diligence there are things that will help enforce that. one is the community. will the community start to accept 40-minute stops. will the law enforcement officer himself accept he's going stop being a police officer for two three, four minutes when there are other things going opn. that's significant. reasonableness. reasonableness stops when you have at the stop end. at that point in time reasonableness has nothing more to do with it because the person should be released until there is another reason another purpose for the stop.

a reasonable arctic cuable suspicion or you have consent. otherwise, it is done. here's the problem with the reasonableness. there was the statement that was made that it's not reasonable, doesn't give the officers enough time. we're not talking about the fourth amendment and the officers and open season on the officers and what the officers can do. we're talking about the fourth amendment and the protections it has on the driver. you don't look at well, it's only going to be a minute longer if you do it this way. the fourth amendment shuts it off when it's done. >> what do you say about the questioning that took place in this case? where are you going to buy a car some place all of that. was that part of the mission? >> we didn't raise that -- your is that part of the mission?

it is something that hasn't been challenged. it has been accepted as being part of the mission. i will tell you that's what the court say that has been accepted as part of the mission. i have lots of questions before as to what is part of the mission and how far you go. that's for the courts to determine. my response -- >> one of these courts is this court. that's what i don't understand about your position, is definition of the mission. i can understand a definition that says just what you need to do to resolve the traffic violation, period. but if it includes other things like questioning about where are you going to buy a car and all of that or doing a records check, then i don't see why -- i want to know what the difference is between that and having a dog sniff. >> well the other things that are tasked in part of the

traffic offense where there's no doubt -- and that could be questionable, but there's no doubt that a dog sniff is not part of the offense that's collateral and it's nothing but an investigation. now, the last thing that i would like to do justice ginsberg is answer your question as to the eighth circuit and the eighth circuit did not make a decision as to the probable cause. but you do have a court that did. the trial level court did make that decision. i made the decision that was probable cause. >> it was only a hunch. but that would ordinarily be reviewable by the court of appeals. the court of appeals didn't get to it. it's an open question for the court of appeals. >> if it can go to the court of appeals. but you have the question that it was based on a hunch but you give the discretion to the magistrate who heard the evidence. and the magistrate had a question as to the credibility of this witness. and if you have a question as to

the credibility of the witness, then there is not sufficient facts made able to make a determination as to whether in fact there's probable cause. we would ask the court to adopt the finding that there is no probable cause. that is something that you can do as a reviewing court because the facts have been established. we know that the judge had problems with the credibility of the witness, the facts that are left is not enough to establish any type of reasonable suspicion. what we do for judicial economy is you make the decision here now. because the eighth circuit would have to do the same thing. the eighth circuit would have to make a decision based on the magistrate's finding of lack -- of credibility and that's what i would ask the courts to do today. thank you, counsel. case is submitted.

president barack obama has chosen the former special agent he asked to temporarily run the troubled secret service to take over as director. the white house said joe clancy will fill the position after four months as acting director. mr. clancy is the former head of the presidential protective division. last month four of the agent us highest ranking individuals were reposted. this afternoon, c-span will are live coverage of the conference starting at 2:45 eastern time. jay johnson will be among a series of speakers. and at 3:00 eastern c-span 2 will are white house cybersecurity coordinator michael daniel as he talk about information sharing between the government and private

companies. his comments will be followed by a panel of private and government security officials. later this afternoon, the first lady of afghanistan attends an event at the center for strategic and international studies on the state of women in afghanistan. c-span will be live with that discussion at 5:30 eastern time. the c-span cities tour takes book tv and american history tv on the road. traveling to u.s. cities to learn about their history and literary life. this weekend we've partnered with time warner cable for a visit to greensboro, north carolina. >> and after months and months of cleaning the house, charles hall bourn was making one more walk through. in the attic he looked over and saw an envelope with a green seal on it and walked over and noticed the date was an 1832 document. he removed a single nail from a panel in an upstairs attic room

and discovered a trunk and books and par traits stuffed up under the eaves. and this was this treasure of dolly madison's things. we've had this story available to the public displaying different items from time to time, but trying to include her life story from her birth to her death in 1849. some of the aitems that we currently have on display, a carved ivory calling card case that has a card enclosed with dolly's signature as well as that of her niece anna. some small cut glass perfume bottles and a pair of sigment slippers that have tiny little ribbons that tie across the arnl of her foot. and the two dresses are the reproductions of a silk gown

that she wore earliest in life. and a red velvet gown. and there's also a legend that is now accompanies this dress. >> watch a ul oufr events from greensboro sad at noon eastern on c-span 2's book tv and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tof on c-span 3. new members of congress visited the heritage foundation last month to discuss the conservative message. former representative jim jordan' three new members of the 114 congress talk about possible issues to better position the party for 2016. this is about an hour ten minutes. don't need a long introduction. you know him well. he's been a very reliable friend of ours on capitol hill. let me just say this about jim and then i'll introduce him and

get him on here. aside from the fact that he's great on policy and courageous, jim is a friend. he's a friend and he's a trustworthy person. when jim says he's going to go to the mat for you on an issue, he goes to the mat for you on an issue. he's always there and always can be relied on. what we've asked him to do is come in and talk about 2015 were the challenges that we face on conservatives. jim is going to speak for ten or 15 minutes, then we'll bring in the freshman panelists you'll hear from them and then we'll do questions and answers. >> thank you, tim. i had a coach in college, one of those coaches who always wanted to challenge his student agent lets with statements of inspiration, motivational statements. and he always talked about commitment. commitment to excellence. and he would -- he had one line

that he liked. he says commitment by definition is total and complete. and if it's compromised then it's not commitment. and the thing i admire so much about heritage jim and mike the whole crew of you here and those who support it is they are committed totally and completely to the defense of freedom and free markets. and they're uncompromising in their effort to make sure liberty is defended. and that is important. you think about where we're at today in america. there are serious attacks on fundamental liberty, serious attacks on freedom. and actually i think they took two forms. there's just the straight on direct assault we see. think about obama care its attack on your first amendment liberty rights, think about the internal revenue service, the irs direct attack on your most

fundamental right, your right to speak in a political nature against the policies of your government and that was systematically targeted other a sustained period of time by this internal revenue service. think about the third example, maybe more recent. president's executive amnesty issue back in november relative to people who came here illegally and the fundamental assault that is on the constitution and the separation of powers. so there's a direct atal tack on liberty and heritage. all of you who are part of heritage are supporting defending liberty and that direct assault we see. but there's also the indirect and more subtle way. that is what that conference is about. and that's this idea that your government can take your money and play favorite with it. and that is wrong as well. it's an attack on freedom and liberty as well. it could be kro anyism

corporate welfare, handouts to the industry of the month, the green energy industry as an example and it is just as wrong as the direct attack. my coach also would talk about this. talked about commitment. but he also talked about setting goals and making sure you can accomplish big things. and he said this. we accomplish in proportion to what we attempt. and the idea is if you set small goals, you're not likely to accomplish big things. if you have big goals you got a chance, it may not happen but at least you have the opportunity and the chance to accomplish big and bold things. i was telling some folks earlier today that, you know there's a big football game tonight and a team from ohio playing. my guess is that at the start of the season the buckeyes probably had the goal of being national champions, just like oregon.

probably set the goal of being national champions. there are lots of other teams that set the same goal. but the idea is if you set a big goal, you got the chance of accomplishing it. they're getting the chance to make that dream a reality tonight. if you set small goals, you're not going to get there. our goal is just to win one game we're going to beat michigan this year. everybody could beat michigan this year. so if that was the only goal -- it is that fundamental. i think we're at one of those points where it is important for the party i belong to, particularly in the congress after the election we just had in november to be big and bold. think about it. can you imagine what if the republican party said we're going to stop the kro anyism, stop the favoritism end the inport/export bank. something that's been around for years. billions of your tax money given to the most powerful large profitable corporations in the

world and we say we're going to stop it? what if we said we're going to throw out the entire tax code. everyone knows the tax skoed benefits big government big corporations. tax code benefits big unions, big lobbies firms here in washington, d.c. tax code benefits big law firms here in. what about middle class families. what if we say instead of that taking place, we're going to represent regular middle class families. i want you to think here just for a few minutes about two people i'm going to describe. and my guess is these two people are two people all across this country and they've went through the same or similar experience several times over the last six years. two people i want you to think about. the first is a guy who this afternoon walked out to get in his truck because he worked second shift at the local auto plant. he walked out to get in his truck -- remember second shift

which means he's going to miss some of his kids' soccer games after school during the summer he misses some of his kids' little league games, can't always make the school play when he kids are in there. but he's working hard second shift at the local auto factory. as he's going out to get in his truck to drive to his work, he sees his neighbor a couple of houses down, his neighbor is sitting on the front porch drinking a cup of coffee. he knows that his neighbor can work but he's not and he's getting some kind of benefit from the taxpayer food stamps, some kind of compensation from the taxpayer. as he's driving off to work he sees his neighbor sitting there drinking his coffee knowing he can work but he's not. as he's driving on the work he turns on the radio and the reporter comes on and says this. says federal government has a $17 trillion national debt and there's some program that they started that gives money to corporations because they're in

the favorite industry of the government and this one particular corporation got millions of taxpayer money and then it went bankrupt. so he hears all this as he's driving in to work second shift at the local factory and guess what. he is ticked off and he has ever right to be. right? so the same time he's driving to work there's a lady driving home from the elementary school who taught second grade. and she cares about her students, she was busting her tail teaching those kids to read. she views it as her mission, education, teaching young people to read, to write, multiplication tables, it's her mission, her mission field to help those students who she's charged with educating. he worked hard all day. she's driving home. she's got her radio on. and she hears the same newscast where the news reporter says, federal government has a $17 trillion national debt and

there's some program where they give her hard earned tax dollars to big favored corporations and one of those companies went bankrupt and lost tens of millions of dollars. and as she's hearing that newscast pulling into her driveway on the same street she sees the same guy sitting on his front porch drink a cup of coffee who can work but won't work and is getting her tax money in some kind of social welfare benefit. guess what? he's ticked off too and she has every right to be. those two people and millions of them around the country just like them are who we are supposed to represent. that's what this entire conference is about. not showing favoritism but providing opportunity respecting freedom and free markets for people like the second grade teacher and the second shift worker. that's who we're supposed to represent. and i think we're at one of those rare moments where our

party had better understand what is at stake. we had better get it. because i think those two people, do you know what i think they did this november? and the millions of folks around the country just like them? i think a bunch of them said i'm not even going to vote. i think they stayed home. but i also think there was a significant number of people like the second grade teacher and the second shift worker that i just described who said, you know what? i am going to vote. and when they went to the polls, i think they said this. we know the democrats have forgotten us we know they don't represent us. they're for big government, top down structure they're for special interest, they're for group politics they don't believe in the individual. we know they have abandoned us. we know they don't remember us. we know they're not standing up for us. but we think maybe, just maybe that other party might. we suspect they don't we suspect they're tax cuts for the

rich and big corporations in wall street. we suspect that's where they're at but we think maybe, just maybe republicans might remember who i am and actually stand up for me. and i would argue that is our charge as we start this congress. our job -- if the first thing our republican party does, the majority in the house and the majority in the senate is trade promotion authority, and corps tax reform, if that's the first thing or frankly, the only thing we do what does that second grade teacher and that second shift worker going to say? i knew i was right. i knew no one represented me. our charge is -- look i'm for those things. those are good policy. but they shouldn't be the first thing or certainly not the only thing we do. we should be putting in place and fighting for those policies you all have been talking about this entire conference, the expand act that is going to expand more opportunities the

going to be labor union reform, school choice throwing out the tax code. think about the tax code. think about this. any tax code on the personal side which says to half the population you're not going to participate in the main tax is broken. any that says you're going pay the highest rate in the world is stupid. if you have a tax code that's both broken and stupid you might want to throw it out and start over right? why not do that. guarantee the seconds grade teacher and the second shift worker, they understand that. they know the tax code is rigged against them and rigged for special interest. he's let's throw it out. imagine how we as a party would do that, it would be so positive. finally two last things and then i'll take your questions. in the story we also can't forget the other person in the story, the guy sitting on the front porch drinking the coffee. one of the things we need to

do -- i think i talked about this at this podium about a year ago. is we need to require work for people who get a benefit from the taxpayer. it treats the taxpayers who pay for it with the respect that they deserve but more importantly it helps that individual get to a better life. i know i did this last time i was here about a year ago. i want you to think about -- go through an exercise with me. think about the very first job you had. was it delivering papers? was it baby-sitting your cousins? watching the neighborhood kids down the street? was it waitress, waiter? for me, me and my brother the first job we had we lived out in the country, we mowed 20 country lawns, had to mow them every week. think about the skill set, the values, the principles you learned in that job making less than minimum wage but which helped you get to your position in life that you're at today. i mean i think we had -- my dad

helped us. we got started, he had an old truck and trailer. we had a riding mower on the back toolbox, push push mower. driving down the road we looked like the beverly hillbillies. he tolds us, i'll help you get started but after that you've got the pay for the gas in h the truck and the mowers through the profits that you make. you've got the maintain the equipment. you're busting belts and pulleys, you're going the pay for that. you learned to handle things. you learned how to imagine a schedule. we had 20 yards and other responsibilities. we had some -- i'll always remember this because we had certain customers who wanted their lawn mowed on thursday because they wanted it looking nice for the weekend. and we figured out they would pay a little more if you mowed it on thursday. guess what we mowed them on thursday. we weren't stupid, right? and you learn those important people skills that help you as

you move on in life and get to other employment. we had, i always remember two ladies never married, two sister the stein burger sisters. nice ladies. typically when you pull into a place, you pull in get after, start unloading and get to work because you hads a lot to do. but we learned with these sisters that it was worth your time before you started to go up to the door, say hello tell them you were going mow their lawn today, talk to them for a few minutes. as sure adds you did that, about the time you were finishing up around the house you could smell the chocolate chip cookies that they were making. and the point is, that guy sitting on the front porch getting something for nothing we are depriving him of what we all learned in those very first occupations and it's something our party has to be willing to talk about in a productive way and say, you know what? the taxpayers who pay for the benefits deserve that.

more importantly the guy receiving them deserves it as well. we want to help him or her get to a better position in life. finally, the last thing i would say is this. same coach of mine who talked about commitment and talked about set appropriate goals also had another line he used that i never forgot. said to me, jim, there are moments in everyone's life that have special significance moments of real meaning moments you never forget. and he called it -- he called them moments of magnitude. moments of important significance and means. and you can think about it. think about your own life. moments you'll -- i think of the day i was married, like 100 degrees in a little methodist church in west view ohio with no air conditioning. i've got four kids. i remember the day each of them was born. we have -- i'll remember this when our son-in-law called us and told us that our first

grandchild's name is elizabeth. there are moments you just don't forget. your kids have certain goals they want to accomplish and they work hard and accomplish it. you'll remember forever. sometimes those moments of magnitude, moments of significance and real meaning are bigger and broader in context and they apply not just to an individual, not just to a family but they can apply to an entire political party. and i would argue we're at one of those now. we have to decide what kind of party we're going to be. are we going to be the party that sort of plays this game? we're for free markets and individual liberty but we also want to have the special deals for the corporations and favorism. are we going to be a party that remembers we're supposed to fight for the second grade teacher and the second shift worker at the local auto plant? we remember those things and we'll be doing the right thing and get off on the right foot in this congress and more importantly help set a framework

and context for 2016 where our nominee can win. finally i mean it this time. my favorite scripture i always share this. it is my favorite. ii timothy 4:7, paul writes to timothy and says this, i have fought the good fight, i have finished the course and kept the faith. it is a verse that's always applied to america because it's a verse of action, fight finish, keep. but it's a verse that we as a party, party i long to need to adopt. we need to fight for those middle class workers who think no one represents them. we need to finish that job and we need to keep faith with the principles of reagan, the principles that made our party great in the first place. and if we do that we're going to have a good congress and a good election in 2016. thank y'all very much. [ applause ]

>> thank you. thank you very much jim. we're going to speed through -- we're going to skip the q and a because we have another panel right now. we're a little bit behind. and i would like y'all to be able to do q and a during that time. you want to stick around, you always can. but i think you a 5:30 -- you can always join us. thank you. let's see here. let me introduce this panel. jim just quoted scripture. i'm going to quote g.k. chesterton and we'll see how that goes. the reason why i like this quote is it says a lot about i think the freshman class that's coming in. this is a quote from his book "orthodoxcy." when the businessman rebukes the idealism of his office boy it's commonly in some speech as this. yes when one is young one has the ideals in the abstract and the castles in the air but in the middle age they all break up

like clouds and one comes down to a belief in practical politics, to using the machinery one has in getting on with the world as it is. thus, at least old men now in their honored graves used to talk to me when i was a boy. since then i've grown up and i discovered that these old men were telling lies. what has really happened is exactly the opposite of what they should would happy they said i would lose my ideals. now i have not lost my ideals in the least. my faith in the fundamentals is exactly what it always was. what i have lost is my old child-like faith in practical politics. he says, the vision is always a solid and reliable fact. sit the reality that is often the fraud. as much as i ever did more than i did i believe. but there was a time i believed in liberals. he's saying don't lose your

ideals. your ideals are true north. they're real. all of the stuff that's going to get thrown at you when you're in washington, all of it changes every single day with every different circumstance. i love this freshman class because this is a class that's talked about ideals and talked about true north. and it has a sense and purpose amongst it that is important that says we're not going to play the game in washington as usual. there are two modes of thought about what this last election meant. you heard senator cruz talk about them a little bit. one is that this election means it's time to govern. it's time to show people we can get stuff done. that's the wrong one. the real thank we know that the election was about is the american people are tired of the game. they want politicians who will up for them and who will never lose sight of the ordeal. i love this group coming up because they are all right there in that. u would invite the panel lists to come up. dave brat from virginia ken kentucky from colorado, gary

palmer from alabama and john radcliffe from texas. thank you all. come on up. and actually ken balk had to cancel at the last minute. i'll take his spot right there. he's presiding on the floor. i'm going to ask each of our distinguished member to give three or four remarks on what they think the out yom of 2014 was. we'll start with tim. >> pretty exciting after 25 years in the think tank business to be back here with the heritage foundation and talk a little bit about what my campaign was about to begin with. and on the campaign trail i would talk to people and tell them that i do not blame liberals for the condition of the country. and that would always -- if there was any murmuring in the

crowd, you know small talk, that always stopped everybody. and i don't. i blame us. you look at poll after poll and we outnumber liberals two to one. they've just been more dedicated, more focused were more left leg to sacrifice more willing to get involved. and that's not exactly the way to endure self devotists. but people i think are looking for honesty. as tim said they're tired of the game. when i started the campaign i pulled my campaign staff together and said look, here's what you need to know. we're not going to go negative. no gnatter what they say they're not going negative. we're going to run a campaign on ideas. and we're going to run the kind of campaign that when it's over, win, lose or rain out, the next day we can look in the mirror and see people that we still like. and then the final thing i told

them is you need to understand i'm not afraid to lose. so -- because i think we're at a point where we've got to have people that are going to run honest campaigns and talk about solutions. and that's what we did. the other thing is i said we've got to stop talking about how bad everything is. for crying out loud, if there's anybody left in the country that doesn't realize things are pretty bad, i'm not sure another speech is going to make a whole lot of difference. and i need to smile more. i try to smile right at the beginning, get that out of the way. laura ingram told me if i would smile i would be a nice looking guy. i started smiling and i got elected to congress. we needed to talk solutions. we -- there is a way to get our country back on the right track. but you've got to be honest about the solutions. it can't be pie in the sky stuff. it's not going to happen in one selection, as brilliant as these guys are. i'm honored to serve with these guys. this is a great class.

we're not going to solve it in one election but withe're going to start the process, start the marge to freedom again president it will take 25 years to get the physical card out of the ditch and get some of the structural things corrected that need to be corrected. so i wanted to be honest about present solutions, be honest about the time line. and then the other thing was is that we need to inspire people. and i can tell you that playing the blame game and playing pelosi and reid and obama, lord knows there's plenty to blame them for it's not a winning formula. the idea that congress is broken and they wanted bipartisanship and stuff, that's not a winning message. they want solutions honesty and they also want to know that if they get involved it's worth it. it's hard to get people to charge a hill or hit a beach if

they don't think the objective is worth it. and one of the things that i tried to do in every gathering of people is to let them know that our country has seen extraordinarily difficult circumstances before and we've prevailed. there are some of you in this room that have no clue about this. there are some of you in this room who do. i would tell people about 1979. i know john fund remembers 1979. and i would say, you know, this is not the worst it's been. in 1979 we had double digit unemployment, double digit inflation, consumer interest rates were on their way to 21 plus%. we had a new index called the misery index. it was the unemployment rate plus the inflation rate. it had a record height in the spring of 1980. the soviet union were in the caribbean, in central africa. and honest conservatives and

liberals both thought that the soviets very likely would win the cold war. they were -- -- by the end of the year they were in afghanistan. we had 52 americaning being held hostage in our embassy in teheran and jimmy carter introduced a new word into the political lex co, malaise. and literally people thought that the united states had seen our best days. but i tell people that's not all that was happening in 1979. there was a guy named reagan running for president, turns out successfully so, and in may of '79 margaret thatcher got elected prime minister. and in june of '79 pope john paul ii went back to his native land of poland. he alive in poland on june 2nd. prior to his arrival, my understanding is the kgb thought initially about having him assassinated. they changed their mind and

pumped atheism into this school system. but when he arrived, by the end of the day, more than a million people gathered and they were chanting, "we want god." light will always piers the darkness. we need to remind people of that. on june 10 he held a mass and somewhere between two and three million people appeared. and he told those people, you must be strong with the strength that faith gives. he said you must be strong with love which is stronger than death. therefore there is no reason to fear. at the end of his homily he said so i beg you, never lose your trust. do not be defeated do not be discouraged. peggy noonan wrote a wonderful article in "the wall street journal" to eulogize pope john paul ii after his death. said at that point that many believe that the fall of the

soviet union was inevitable. but that's not the rest of the story. almost eight years to the day later, on june 12th 1987, ronald ray gone stood out the gate and said mr. gorbachev were tear down this wall. seven months later it was down. if any of you were living at that time had gone anywhere the united states in '79 and said we would be in the middle of the greatest expansion that the world would have seen and the iron curtain would have been down, people would have thought we were crazy. the whole world was changing. i believe it's changing again. this is what i try to tell people. the whole world is changing. you can be a part of it or you can miss it. and i'll end with this. it was the last major speech that reagan made to the republican convention in 1992 in

shoe ston. he quoted a guy name james allen. he wrote that july 26th 1775. the whole world was changing in front of mr. allen and he missed it. so what i would say to you and what i would encourage you to share with your friends is that faith is something you need to be strong with. don't be discourage, don't be defeated and don't give up. we've been here before and we can overcome the struggles again. thank you. >> thank you congressman palmer. appreciate it. congress radcliffe, we'll go down the line. >> thank you. appreciate the invitation to be here. let me echo what gary said. if it is a tremendous honor to be able to serve that with a bunch of folks, very quickly we've

gotten to know our freshman conservative colleagues and i think that's the reason that gary had such a profound and inspiring message and i think that we all will with respect to the opportunities that lie ahead for conservative solutions. in my case, you know, i ran against a republican incumbent. a 34-year incumbent who was frankly very well liked. but you know the reason that i have the opportunity now to serve in congress was, as tim said notwithstanding all of that, what i learned out on the campaign trail is that people are very much discontent with the status quo. there is a feeling out there, and i think that you know i hope to represent that feeling. i know that barry and dave would tell you the same thing, is that, you know, the feel out there is that washington is filled with a bunch of career po