of the official party and until your row is invited to depart by a visitor services representative. thank you. [applause] >> next, the supreme court oral argument on the constitutionality of wordless cell phone searches very at after that, a house hearing examines how criminal convictions affect a person's civil rights. then, house hearing on the influx of under age immigrants who arrive at the u.s. border unaccompanied by adults. tomorrow, state legislators and

education leaders gather to discuss some of the issues facing education today, from early childhood education to post secondary and beyond. live coverage begins at two: 30 c-span. p.m. eastern on c-span. state dealsry of with the unexpected. no one expected the arab spring until it was upon us. we have to learn to be agile and ready for the unexpected, while we try to build a world that we want, especially for our children and now for my future grandchild, but we have got to be aware of the fact that all these other countries, all these billions of people am a they are making hard choices every single day. we have to be ready for that.

thatabsolutely convinced we have to continue to lead the world into the kind of future that we want. we can't sit on the sidelines, we can't retreat, we're going to have set tax and disappointments, but over time, our story has become the dominant story. it represents the hopes and aspirations of people everywhere . that is what i want americans to understand. the main reason that i wrote this book -- i know there's a big debate going on about our havein the world and we still some consequence is to deal with from prior decisions and the like, but we can't abdicate our responsibility. how wedefine it and executed will be up for public debate. america matters to the world and the world matters to america for

our prosperity and a security and our democracy. spoke with usnton about her decision-making process and some of the decisions she has had to make as secretary of state. the full interview is shown on c-span tv. >> on wednesday, the supreme court unanimously decided that in most circumstances, police have to get a warrant before searching the cell phone of a suspect who has been arrested. the court heard two related cases. here is the oral argument of one of them, riley versus california, which was held in april. this is about an hour.

>> is always been the case of an occasional arrested not give police officers authority to search through the private tapers of somebody's house. that protection should not evaporate more than 200 years after the founding because we have the technological development of smart phones. .> just a test the principal for why the police can search and seize some objects. consider the gun. an arrest he has a gun on his person and the police take the gun. it is part of the reason for that seizure to obtain evidence of the crime, or is it just for the safety of the opera sir and the safety of the community? what this court said in

robinson is that the reason for supporting the authority are the two chanel factors. evidence to prevent his distraction and for public safety. >> for instance, with the gun. ?o they take fingerprints the gun is in the police station where the arrestees being booked. could they copy the serial number? for this ema shelter chamber? -- how many bullets left in the chamber? if the proposition and the principal, then, is that some objects that are obtained from the arrestee can be examined in case,to build the state's

is that at least a beginning premise that we can accept in your case, although obviously there are problems of the extent and intrusiveness of the search that are in your case, but not in the gun hypothetical. isdust is kennedy, the court never described that is one of the things. if you want to think about this case the lady you considered the automobile search in can't. premise,hat weren't a it would only be that, a beginning. this court says that any incident to arrest has not satisfied the fourth amendments general reasonableness. >> it is the best statement in support of the principal that i have suggested. you might say that is is limited and we are back where we started . >> there are important things to understand if you want to think -- it is genetically

different from what we have here. >> before we do that, have you been accurate in what you said about robinson and about the courts cases? in weeks, which was quoted in thenson, the court said right to search the person of the accused when legally arrested to discover and seize the fruits or evidences of crime. is that historically inaccurate? do you want us to repudiate that? >> no, your honor. you quoted. fruits and instrumentalities of the crime are always something that can be seized from the person. there was that historical authority to take foods and evidence -- i'm sorry, fruits and instrumentality. >> which did say?

even if we are in a world where police can see some evidence and use it for the prosecution, there are still very profound problems with searching a smartphone without a warrant. even under the robinson rule, whencourt has recognized it comes to blood draws or a strip search, there are limits even to the robinson rule. >> smartphones raise other problems. a person with a billfold with photos that were

important to him in the billfold. he had that at the time of arrest. do you dispute the proposition that the police could examine the photos in his billfold and use those as evidence against him? >> no. that is the rule of robinson. and he physical item on an arrestee can be seized and inspect it and then used as evidence. we draw a line. >> what is the difference between looking at hardcopy photos in a billfold and looking at photos that are saved in the memory of a cell phone? >> the difference is that digital information versus physical items. physical items can pose a safety threat and have distraction possibilities that aren't present with digital evidence. what is more, once you get into the digital world, you have the concern -- >> how does these hardcopy

photos? they don't present a threat to anybody. i don't see that there is much of a difference between the government -- the government argues there is a greater risk of this guys -- of distraction of digital evidence then there is for photos. i don't quite understand how that applies to that situation. >> undertake this once a time. i take the theory of robinson, that any physical item because it could contain a razor blade or pan, needs to be inspected to be sure. hoc nature of ad arrest, the police don't have to distinguish physical items. >> let's stick with justice alito's hypothetical. to find a business card of something which shows a car rental service. and it turned out over? they're not looking for a 10 or explosive, they found a card. can they do that? can, but ithey

really don't want to apply -- >> can they turn the card over? i think what you have in robinson is a categorical rule that obvious these case-by-case determinations. you can make an argument that if i needed to and it were a diary case of billfold case, but i think the court wisely decided under robinson that we need a categorical rule that is easily administrator both in the field. digital information, even the notion of flipping through photos and a smartphone, implicates vast amounts of information, not just the photos themselves, but the gps locational data that is linked in with. , all kinds of other information that is intrinsically entwined in smartphones. >> including information that is specifically designed to be made out like. what about something like facebook or a twitter account? any privacy interest in the facebook account is at least

diminished because the point is you want these things to be public and seen widely. >> i guess my question would be, you source is absent don't have an air of privacy about them? >> i think it would be extraordinarily difficult and i will tell you why. much of the information is even a facebook account is a limited universe of people who have access to it. >> it is certainly not private in the sense that many of the other applications are. >> i think it is fair to say you have a sliding scale and there is some stuff on the phone that might be posted on the internet. the difficulty with that case if you want to address it in a future case, would be intertwined nature of information on a phone. looking at those photos will be linked to the contacts inside

,he phone, the gps information all of this information is intertwined. you would have a difficult administer billet he problem if you wanted to create a rule like that. the government might want to deal with the problem differently by calling it information in the cloud. we submit that would further compound the difficulty of applying a rule in this circumstance. we have to decide whether all information that may be available any smartphone can be examined by police when the owner of the phone is arrested, or can we just focus on the particular evidence that was admitted in your client's trial? >> the way you phrase the question is a first cut at this. it is looking at particular pieces of evidence which are photos and videos. we don't think you can write an opinion that would distinguish those from anything else on a

smartphone. the state argument here is that those are not fundamentally different from other things that people would carry around. >> you think you could obtain a warrant in this case? >> in all likelihood, yes. >> well, then, the evidence that is seasonable under a warrant is , and justice alito points out the fact that some of legal.idence is if there's is a limitation with reference to the way the police behaved, justice alito points out it is limited to just this evidence. >> let me say a couple of important things about the requirements. -- let me has said say couple of things about the warrant requirement. >> it goes to the fact that it

is searchable under fourth amendment standards. >> with a warrant, justice kennedy. if you pose a neutral observer between the citizen and the police officer, perhaps more importantly it does two very big things. it can trigger the fourth amendment particularity requirements, so that the magistrate -- the magistrate can say. the prosecution introduced photos and videos, but that is we look at a whole lot of stuff on the phone, and that is what caught his eye. >> how would it work for the magistrate? , he just told justice kennedy, that a war could be obtained. a warrant for what? over the police have to show phone,ey have seized the

they have secured it. and now they want to search it. >> we give an example of a warrant in our reply brief. there are many more available on the web from states that are already -- that already require warrants. they say the police officer .estifies i suspected this fellow was in a gang. i believe gang members keep shouldn't things on their phone. this is the kind of crime we are investigating and therefore these files are likely to obtain evidence. the warrants say with particularity, these are the things you can look out and these are things that you can't. >> is hard to figure out what you can and can't see. it is easy for the magistrate?

but impossible for an arresting officer? magistrate at for some remove them for an officer under the stresses in the field. agree it is not going to be perfect. let's look at what happens. the point you make elsewhere in your brief and argument is that the cell phone, the smartphone has everything. if you are arresting somebody on the grounds of sis-ish and that he is a gang member and have evidence to support that, what part of the smartphone is not likely to have heard meant evidence? your pictures and videos and similar toess it other issues that have been raised. other know what a magistrate is supposed to put in the warrant. >> i would say is banking app. >> the banking app would say

deposit $10,000 in his account, and that would coincide with a particular drug deal. >> this could be made on an app by app basis. with the government says is, let the officer looked, and then have a backend hearing where you suppress everything he was not supposed to look at once you apply particularity requirements. leon kicks in and you don't have to have all these hearings. the kind have to have of suppression here. one important thing that goes into a warrant, which might have been glossed over too quickly in the brief. is not just what can be looked at, is how can. retention of information raises extraordinary concerns. they are keeping this information in databases,

ever-growing databases of every cell phone that they have ever -- >> what if you have a device that does not have the broad information a smartphone has, setonly in very limited data that tells you how many steps you take. what if they want to check and see if he is walked for miles? which iss whole life, a great part of your objection. is that something they can look at? i think probably not. this is the categorical rule were its weeks in the hypotheticals we have talked about. there is another rule for digital information. obviously, i don't have to win that argument today, but i think that is how you would approach that question. with the fit bit, smartphone tells you the information you are told about. modern smartphones work the inside of people's houses. we have cameras.

they monitor the insides of people's bodies. >> what if the phone in this case was an old-fashioned flip phone. as a capacity to take pictures with a much more limited memory, would that still be the case? >> that would be a part of your conversation in the next part, perhaps. simply say, digital evidence , areon modern cell phones different than physical items. i don't think it is worth going back in time to the most rudimentary device for having that argument. discat about a compact with information saved on that? >> i think that might be the same kind of case that you have now. remember, the phone in this case had a removable and memory card as many still do. by the way, we're going to talk about destruction of evidence. that is one answer to the problem.

we have given lots of arguments in the brief that explain why as tovernment's arguments why things don't stand up. ,> you didn't finish the answer you were describing the difference between the downloading a police into databases that they keep forever . what happens with materials that are returned pursuant to a search warrant? they be precluded from doing that. that the ordinary rule is that the police often seal evidence in the real world. it is a -- if it is a physical item, it may have to be returned to the owner of it, but if it is something that can be copied and remain in police files, they can use it indefinitely into the

future. you have real problems when you apply that's typical rule to digital information, because now , from what i had to stand, the --ernment itself acknowledges that it is keeping an ever-growing federal database at least some of the information seized from smartphones. >> i'm sorry, can you do the same thing? the beauty of a search warrant is it can delineate retention rules. allowssay here is who is ed to look at it and who is not. don't remember a prosecutor coming to me with that kind of delineation. >> we just have new and different concerns that have arisen in the past. >> would there be accidents he is that would allow police to

look at cell phones? if so, what would those exigencies be? >> absolutely. they would be times at the scene where exigencies would allow it. the two officers safety argument the other side makes about hypothetical bomb or a confederate ambush, this court artie recognized in the chadwick . the concern about remote wiping we think, and as the experts think thatwe'd whatever arises, very odd world, yes. there it. >> when there is a bomb, you don't know there is a bomb until you look in the phone. way to kills on the the officer and released their confederate. you don't know until you look in the phone. an can that possibly be

exiting circumstance? >> dealing with a locked briefcase. surrounding facts and circumstances might indicate iat there is a hypothetical think it gives a classic textbook example of how exigent exigent circumstances -- exit gensler and his can be applied here. to be anng extraordinarily rare circumstance. ,f you had that circumstance you would not need to get a warrant. the lawyer has written and wants to hold the briefcase, and you cite page seven of your

hand, 1916learned case. much in that. >> we did not find cases involving briefcases and documents. judge friendly also mentions the diary situation. important you are going to try to formulate some standard which illuminates -- which eliminates the extent of the search. fair, buts not quite if we rule for the government and it is not an exigent circumstance, if there is some standard were we to draw the which would still result in a judgment in your favor? >> maybe that is not quite a fair question. you're not arguing.

>> certainly, in my case, you have an exploratory search were not even the state has contended the amount of information that that is equivalent to what somebody could have carried around in the old days. >> if the phone rings, can the police answer it? >> obviously, this court is not address them. all the cases we have found over the police artie have a wart in --d and there held unquestionably, the police -- >> s could look at certainly you could look at the caller id coming through because i would be in plain view.

there are coupled important aspects to the diary question that i want to draw out. the reason i think that you don't find i read pages and look for them is that people hardly ever carry a diary outside the home. it was kept in a private drawer in the bedroom or wherever it might be kept. i have an usual circumstance where somebody did, you might have a hard case. world. the opposite modern reality of smartphones is that is an indispensable item for everyday life. you can't leave the house without it and consider yourself to be responsible and safe and a world where the police might say we can get andight direly -- diary apply to the world where everybody has everything with -- >>ll the time

including the criminals were more dangerous, more sophisticated and more loose the cell phones. that is the other side of this. >> the fourth amendment has a balance built in. not saying you can't look at digital information, we are they seize iten they can freeze it and go get a warrant. that thegnificant information was not protected with a password? it does not expect the expectation -- it does not affect the expectation of privacy? >> if this is not even research, that might be an argument they might deploy. i think that they also agree that password protection does not matter. it certainly does matter under their argument. their position is, if we seized a corporate executive smartphone is locked and protected, if we can get that information to our lab, we don't have to ask for a

warrant. yourm wondering if position is weakened by the fact that the individual did not seek the greater protection of a password. >> people to lock their homes are the briefcases. the smartphone, protected on the person, is enough to trigger the fourth amendment. if i could reserve the rest of y time -- but mr. dumont. said, if fischer had mr. riley had been carrying physical photographs of his pocket at the time of his arrest, there's no dispute that arresting officers could look at this photograph to see whether they contain evidence of crime. been reasonable in that situation does not become constitutionally unreasonable simply because esther riley

carries his photographs in digital form on a smartphone. the shift to digital does not make the photographs any less than those printed on paper. many of our rules were based on practical considerations. practically speaking, a person can only carry so much on their person. different, because carrying a billfold of photographs is a billfold of four graphs. to can go anywhere from one five, but now we are talking about potentially thousands. with digital cameras, people take endless photos. -- it spans their entire life. you don't see difference between the two things, what has now become impractical, a gps can

follow people anyway the prior following by police officers in cars not permit. we certainly see distinction and the possibility in some cases that there could be a constitutional difference. what we don't see is that in this case, the facts are nothing like it. as a constitutional difference on those phenomenon. theory, even if i'm carrying as was theographs case of judge cardozo decided the 20's, they're bound to be very personal and private photographs. >> your argument and the principal arguments, a person can be arrested for anything. they can be arrested for driving without a seatbelt. the police did take that phone

and look at every single e-mail that person is written, including work e-mails, e-mails to family members, very intimate communications, can look at all that person's bank records and all that persons medical data, could look at that person's calendar, over that persons gps and find out every place that person had been usually. because that person was arrested for driving without a seatbelt. aztecs me as a very different kind of world in the kind of world you are describing where somebody has pictures of their family in a billfold. this may strike you that way? -- doesn't this strike you that way? your argument applies to any it applies to

everything on a cell phone. people carry their entire lives on cell phones. that is not a marginal case, that is the world we live in, isn't it? >> the cell phone had a handful , but what we understand is that there were .50 contacts, 42 videos for this category of phases. even as driving under the influence. rules that the cell phone is fair game no matter what the crime, no matter how

the crime unimportant is. that opens a world to the police. >> is true that the court draws categorical lines, and that is what the court said in robinson. the court has repeatedly said that those lines are drawn based on the generality of cases. they are not drawn based on the in thel case -- heartland, it is a violent -- >> what i'm trying to suggest to you is that you call it marginal, but in fact, most people do carry their lives on will onlys, and that grow every single year as young people take over the world. [laughter] that is not a marginal case. they have as much computing capacity as laptops did five years ago.

age,body under a certain let's say under 40, has everything on them. >> i think you need to look at the generality of cases. we'll be dealing the serious crimes. second, you will be dealing with police. is this at the discretion of the officer? if that is so, we will get a warrant. align withrying to an officer in the field. >> let's leave exits and circumstances out of it. that is an easy change. you're not arguing for exit circumstances. that sayingent is that mr. fischer concedes

justify the search of the person and the caesar of the phone, they need to protect the officer safety and protect evidence. the fact that you don't know the phone or whether there is a safety concern are evidentiary >> is there any basis for the generality that there may be a safety concern? one of the phone were used to trigger a device? >> here is a case from california. there is one where there is a late-night arrest, it starts with a speeding ticket and off the highway late at night it develops that maybe there's more going on. the person looks to be under the influence. the officer looks at the cell phone. the first thing you see when he turns a cell phone on is a picture of what appears to be the driver standing with two

assault rices -- two rifles. i would say that changes the situational awareness of the officer in that situation. that information could not been gotten later at the station house. >> was that have to do with my evidence? >> this awesome -- >> once the police have your phone, the bomb is not going to be set off. that is true, but it is also true of all the objects and all prior cases. there's no question whether there was a razor blade or heroine in the cigarette pack, -- >> i would like to ask a question about the extent of your theory.

>> your theory would apply to that, computers, anything is sitting next to a person in a car, at their desk they are arrested at their desk, anywhere , if you are tearing it in your hands. you see a lot of people carrying the ipad or something comparable. you theory would permit a search of all of those things. >> objects that are on the extend to doesn't those who are sitting nearby. >> what is the rule? say i am the person. suppose that in the car and a holder was the closest to the passenger seat? are you saying that you don't want to expect that opinion about that?

>> i will say that the court is drawn different rules for different situations. if there is reason to think there might be evidence of a crime of arrest on the phone, that is the rule of the court. it is a different rule. >> what about if i have my lap my eye pod my ipad in my backpack? there is the conductivity and networking question. as for the volume question, we don't really have it here. we could have in other cases. if you have enough information of enough different kinds on this device and the police spend enough time looking at it, they could build a remarkable portrait that some of the justices allude to.

would be qualitatively different from what has ever been done before. is some choice a person has made to keep a certain amount of information on the phone and have it in his pocket. you could get to the current qualitatively different search, but it is miles away from this and the heartland. >> so what is your ruling? >> possibly one, get a warrant. possibility to, it is just a like a piece of paper. three, sometimes yes and sometimes no. >> our position is that the core information like this is compact -- >> no, my three choices. [laughter]

which of the three choices is yours? >> in between. is,y follow-up question please tell me what you're in between rule is. >> might in between rule is that for information that is on the same sort that please have been able to seize, that includes diaries and letters. all other kinds of evidence, photographs and address books, the same rules should apply. >> understand, then. >> the last explanation is that i would leave for another case -- >> you say if it could be reduced to a piece of paper. , orcould have them on you you could have them on you.

that would be true of absolutely everything. >> bank records the police can get from the bank because they have the bank's records. with a subpoena, not a search warrant. could get that you them legally in some other way has never justified and legal search otherwise. >> no, but the question is how fallible is this information is up for grabs. >> please could've searched for if it wasn't on the computer, then they can search for it on the computer. since they can search for everything in your pockets, when it was in the computer, why isn't yours everything. whether it is or is not going to be evidence. they don't know that until they read it.

, iuess what you're saying is thought it was category to sometimes, but really it is category three always. ? y am i wrong echo >> i think you inverted two and three. [laughter] >> if the police have a legitimate investigative purpose for getting information from the phone, it seems to us that they should be able to look at the same kind of information that could have looked at in any other previous context. is a concession on your part. smartphones contain a lot of information that would not have been sort of thing please can look up before. the police could never have

gotten that before. you're saying that is protected. >> i am saying that everybody has a different set of issues. >> it seems to me that getting be theswers may -- correct between me if i'm wrong. >> the court has previously declined to draw the line. let's my wife might put a note in my pocket. stephen, turn right, it is the third stoplight. [laughter] now, is in a gps. >> the gps could in fact tell us

whether he did turn right or went somewhere else. a -- >> if you could amend answer. you could amend your answer to say not just anything that , aebody could have had person could have had a diary that records every lays the person is undergone in the last year. you could say something that has a realistic analog in the predigital era. this is similar to the problem in the jones gps case. you have the rule of law that was established in the predigital era. now you have to apply in the digital era where the technology changes a lot of things. analog and a close digital era to something that would've been allowed in the predigital era, that may be a different story.

that wasrs information at issue here. the survey covers others information contact information. >> you're not willing to limit searches thatto either are in order to protect the officer or preserve three, inor, number order to find evidence of the crime of arrest. not willing to limit it that way. want to say whatever is on the person you can search. available limits are by far the most historically based and the most plausible one. they will get you into the rest for not wearing a seatbelt. it seems absurd that you should

be able to search the person's iphone. say,an avoid that if you and the vast majority of cases, this will not be a problem unless the officer can reasonably look for evidence of the crime and arrest. >> re-think that could be a perfectly reasonable role. those question and the court for this rule. this should not depend on what exactly was written down on the booking sheet. it should be, was there probable cause to arrest? it also should include a plainview concept. >> there is an analog with photos. the arrested person has photos. paris, digital age, of course you can look at them. on the phone there are photos.

his entire life history in photos. in your rule, can the policemen look at the photos seattle by analog or not. once the answer? >> in theory yes, you can always look. in practice... >> i see there are very few things that you cannot find an analog to him predigital age searches. the problem in almost all instances is quantity and how .ar afield you're likely to go so i accept your rule. the rational basis is that that the factns of the arrest necessarily and legitimately largely abates the privacy interests of the individual on his and anything

he or she has chosen to carry on his person. modern technology makes it possible for people to choose to carry a great deal of information, but it doesn't change the fact that a reasonable expectation is that the police will search the -- >> are you saying, essentially, that nobody has any expectation of rcr that somebody huge expectations of privacy? in anything that the person wants to keep on all the time. >> we're not saying that at all. we are saying that people make choices and those choices have consequences. those consequences are carrying things on your person. >> thank you, counsel.

>> mr. chief justice, and may please the court. >> to at least briefly understand why there is a categorical robinson rule and how cell phones implicate many of those concerns. the categorical robinson rule for the fact that when someone is carrying something on the person in their subject to legitimate probable cause arrest, their expectations of privacy are not considerably reduced. the government on the other hand has several very compelling interests at the moment of arrest that have indicated by conducting a thorough search of the person or the things that they have. it protects officers safety and allows the discovery of evidence that is relevant to the crime. the understanding was.

ize default.a se you could go to a magistrate and within the hour get permission to search. what is the reason for calling up the magistrate here? they have disabled it. i understand why we cut the word out of this picture. >> several answers to that. you could probably say the same thing about almost everything that is seized under robinson and edwards. once it is in the places hand, they can vote in the back of their patrol car in the trunk and it would be saved and they could go get a warrant. >> the balance is always construct at the moment of arrest to allow the officers to the interest in the

matters that i have previously described. -- they do differ in the amount of information a person can carry on them and the amount of revelation about a persons life. that is true. they also differ in that they greatly facilitate criminal activity. they contain a great deal of evidence and their subject to destruction in a way that ordinary physical items are not. even if an officer has a cell phone in his hand, he cannot guarantee that there won't be a remote signal sent to the phone that will wipe its data. >> have you heard of cases where this has happened? >> the fbi has looked into the question of to what extent can you protect the phone through -- if you things like throw a phone into a faraday bag, which is supposed to be able to block network signals, when you open it up, it has to

be similarly shielded or it will pick up a signal from a cell tower that will wipe the phone. a faradayans to build room. verizon put up a cell tower and that signal was strong enough to wipe out the recording. for michigan and vermont. is there any instance out of thesestates where scenarios have taken place? >> i can't speak -- >> you don't know. >> isn't this a problem that weht be postponed because have warring technologies, etc.? you're saying we should allow searches of all cell phones because it might be a technology that hasn't been used in any of the states that have this rule. that sounds a little

hypothetical. i'm not quite sure how to handle it. is plenty of technology available and technology to wipe funds remotely. encryption technology is increasingly being deployed in cell phones. that is something that clearly is on the rise. when the phone is turned off or a lot kicks in and the phone encrypt, it can be almost impossible to get into -- >> you were making that argument. >> i have three related questions, ok? phonen't you just put the on airplane route. >> can answer that one first? alwaysf all, it is not possible to find airplane mode. the officer has a lot of things to do when he arrests suspects.

>> i'm a little confused about what this argument is, and how you do it at the scene. you have enough time to get the warrant by putting it on airplane mode. >> what you don't have enough time to get the warrant if he did at the scene, that is certainly true. the fact that we will have airplane mode is saying that airplanes will be used in the next five years and that manufacturers will make it an easily available button for airplane mode. i do think the court should found a constitutional ruling. for a're asking us constitutional principle based on technology that might or

might not do something. but not inur cases, the general. >> i think what i'm trenches suggest is the traditional identifications for search and arrest. that is very real today. a petitioner who is asking for a new rule, we are asking for the application of the robinson rule. if not, then primarily the best whatto apply would be -- would you do under the robertson rule with an attorneys briefcase? the attorneys briefcase may present particular problems. >> is that the exact same problem that every cell phone has? >> i was referring to the privileged rule. the lower court has looked at it. they have said that if a person is arrested holding a briefcase, the police can open the briefcase and look at its

contents. they can't just go through the contents for prurient interest. they can look for evidence that is related to criminal activity. they do it in a way that is minimally innervation of -- it there looking for evidence. >> some cell phones have tax returns, so you have a tax return of the jaywalker. >> i would acknowledge justice kennedy that if the court was looking for a rule that limits the ability of the lease to search cell phones because cell phones are not different from paper items in some respects, but not all. the most reasonable rule to apply would be one that says, when there is reason to believe that there is evidence of the crime of arrest, on the phone, the officers can look for that. when there is not, they can't. >> given the variety of things that these cell phones have in

, it ends up, you can imagine in every case that the police really look at everything. it is like this case. someone is arrested for gun crime. now we're going to look at all the various things that might be related to a gun crime. andher he has bought guns whether he has done searches for gun stores. his e-mail might say something about gun possession or gun purpose. he might have photographs of him with a gun. the whole range of things could relate to that crime, could knit? it?ouldn't be the case for jaywalking crime or a bar fight or many other minor crimes.

they are posited on the other side of the equation for petitioners with a narrower approach to searches. >> i do think it couple of things are worth worrying about. in this case, a draw defense and worry. if the police do have a warrant, they would be looking at the same things. the only way to execute the line on the phone would be to engage in at least a cursory search of everything on the phone. >> the whole idea of a warrant is that a new magistrate tells it you can look at those things. you have an opportunity to .imited in any way you care as a protection. >> i'm not sure the magistrate -- they would say it is not appropriate for the magistrate to describe the manner of the execution and the search. >> there is a different balance

at the moment of the arrest. at that moment, society's interests are at their apogee in locating evidence related to the arrest and apprehending related suspects. the suspect has a highly you, council. four minutes. >> thank you. four or fiverd proposed rules that i want to go through one at a time. first, the state talked about a different rule.h that is virtually sweeping everything on the phone to the wouldn't and you have a struggle on a case by case know if each app had thatrent information existed in the nondigital world. smartphone is on someone's

person, that is different than it is different than sitting them.o remember, it gives authority to aarch and seize without warrant anything in the grab area if there is a destruction argument. person who is arrested sitting at his desk at the reaching area on his computer would be under a full search. there is questions about at the scene of an arrest. to prevent a wipe, preventing a password from kicking in. the first thing that you need to understand is those arguments scene.ly only at the they wouldn't apply to this case an officer takes the phone back to the police station and it at hishrough leisure. all the questions that the the scene can at

be left for another case and at the best, the government has there might be tightly limited circumstances where the circumstances would apply. say a question on the password question in particular, that we did not talking about, pages 12-14 of the reply brief, outline how highly unlikely smartphone to be seized while it is still unlocked. notingy a worth footnote that even if it is themd, it does not give the authority to divulge a warrant. argument does not have any play if the government courts.the lower distis wisho and unseriouss

decisions. it precludes that kind of determination for all of the that the government argued in those cases. finally, you mentioned a couple times of the gant principle as applied to this case, you might find on the phone. profound problems with that. you need to protect the amount people had at the founding. as i said in my opening, the might have anone item on his person, even in the addresse of diary or book are league was from the information that is stored in the home and that are sat row sarcht. the search. passedrun the test through the world of crimes, the government may be able to here or thereme that might be difficult to argue about but speeding as we point

in our brief, d.u.i., littering, all kinds of minor crime, a person can make a thaty convincing argument evidence on the phone would be arrest. to that kind of that brings me to where i want end, remember this case stop. with a traffic it is everyday police work that the beginningare of an investigation and a leverage into searches. if you can make an argument that evidence on the phone would be relevant to the crime of the arrest. take a suspended license. have a license from the d.m.v. saying you need to come and renew. if that opens up everyone's life but at the the scene station house, you will have the naturely change

of society that the we have fought for. council.you, the case is submitted. examsnext a house hearing out criminal convictions affects a person's several rights. then on the influx of underage who arrived in the adults.unaccompanied by compensation expert was toain bud general motors advise how they should company victims of crashes linked to defective ignition switches. he will announce his proposal in washington, d.c. can see that announcement live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2. thenu had broadcast tv and cable came along and then satellite. we'ref satellite said

different from cable. we're going to take that and not what is inrselves law called an mvpd. negotiate.ve to but satellite didn't do that. should aero say we don't negotiate for copyright material. beginning, this isn't about being opposed to technology. doesn't mean you can evade business. run a >> more on the supreme court decision with the head of the national association of broadcasters tonight at 8:00 communicators on c-span2. the judicialay, heldttees over task force a hearing looking at the impact convictions on families and

communities. housing as well as other civil liberties. an hourtion is about a and 15 minutes. >> the chair will be authorized to declare bullets on the floor. supposed to have an hour voteshalf worth of beginning at 10:30-10:35. it would bek advisable to have the witnesses a half and iur and don't know how many members are coming back after an hour and a so i would like to wrap 10:30, 10:45.

good morning and welcome to the judiciary the committee's task force. today's hearing will focus on collateral consequences criminald with the convictions. penalties and other issues that affect criminal defendants andng the investigative prosectorial phases. today's hearing we'll examine the consequences that follow the whichal investigation, may not be apparent during a criminal case. the american bar association that some collateral consequences serve an important and legitimate public safety. there are regulatory functions, such as keeping firearms out of hands of violent offenders, or theing children elderly from people with abuse.y or mental

others are directly related to the particular crime such as registration requirements for offenders, driver's license restrictions for those who convicted of serious traffic or those convicted of procurement fraud. however, advocates, including our panel today have argued that collateral consequences are the code throughout books and frequently unknown to responsible for the administration and enforcement. sound familiar to the members of this task force as repeatedlyes have demonstrated the staff carrying scatteredenalties are throughout the u.s. code. recognized inu.s. 2010 when a person considering a is unaware of con

convinces that will follow, this raises questions of fairness and implicates the constitutional effective assistance of counsel. believe this is one that we should investigate. are several areas where i have several concerns, most notablably to the advance by many, including one of our witnesses today that congress should force private employers employees criminal history when making a hiring decision. generally, i do not believe that who engaging in violent conduct should be able to the consequences of their actions. additionally, over the years, has repeatedly seen fit to make criminal history records employers,o including schools, banks, power

other vital nature of infrastructure. of 2006, iy, the act have serious concern concerns wy characterize dangerous sex offenders who pray children from an unjust collateral consequence. aving said that, i have been consistent component in efforts rehabilitate offenders. i reintroduced the hr3465, the second of 2013.zation act bipartisan proposal would

reauthorize and streamline the programs in the second chance act to help exoffenders to be productive members of our society. i look forward to hearing about other issues associated with the collateral consequences of a criminal conviction. it is now my pleasure to recognize for his opening oftement the ranking member the task force the gentleman virginia. inratio over 350 per 100,000 jail get a reincident diminished return. over 100,000500 becomes counter productive. if so many people with felony

records that increases crime, crime.reases since 1992,hat have gone from $65 million and the increase was over six times of education. the hearing focuses on the counter productive collateral consequence.t con s. they are counter productive to the goal of public safety. the 195e each of mandatory in our federal code, one at a time, each and every the 145,000 collateral consequences were written into the state and federal law got there slowly over time.

consequences may not hurdle into a high reentry but taken together. form aonsequences tightly woven web that restricts them from overcoming hurdles in past. as mandatory minimum sentences, sentence people before they are charged based on the code section violated without consideration of the serious of the crime or the role of the defendant. consequences applies across the board and to all convicted felons. federal drugted defendants were convicted of a amanda torying

sentence. the collateral consequences that you face are not tailored at all. all. one size fits it is another tough on crime sweeping too broadly and too harshly. there is to no reliable da that theydemonstrates that improve public safety, reduce -- the contrary to all of the evidence is just the opposite. collateral consequences of convection affect an obtainual's ability to employment, housing, student loans to further their education, the ability to interact with their children and democraticin the process. all of these restrictions among onesof thousands of other resulted in lifelong civil

preventedthat individuals from integrating society. just as the children's defense recognized employment and other social services are crime prevention resources to redirect individuals to what they call to prison pipeline so redirect those reentering our communities after serving their sentences. is no hope for a decent job because employers hire those with a prior conviction, we can't be surprised that some choose the that led them to prison in place.st now in some circumstances, there looking at the criminal conviction. for example, it makes sense with

an embezzlement denied a a job at bank. the e.o.c. issued guidance that use of athat employers mayinal record is discriminate against them if disproportionate impact. that could constitute discriminate nation. record may be the untargeted, overly jobs becauseof all of any federal record macons may disdimgrate.

membersut object, other opening statements will be made part of the record. pleasure to introduce the two witnesses this morning. executive is the director and a founding member defender inborhood harlem. of then the faculty defense criminal college men currently serves as secretary of the national association of criminal defense served that organization as a two-term the board of directs, co-chair of both the defense taskttee and a special force on problem-solving courts a co-chair on the

status.nd prosecutinga attorney from ohio. he served montgomery county as a clerk and assisted prosecuting attorney. he received his undergraduate degree from marquette wisersity, which is a choice. you to limitll of your opening remark to five minutes. you are aware of what red, yellow, and green means in you.imer before even though i introduced you always the prosecution puts their case in first. is yours.the floor >> good morning, mr. chairman. thank you very much. comment aboutour marquette. ok, i appreciate your comments

about marquette university. i know it is dear to your heart. in addition to being the prosecution attorney from chair onhio, i'm's the the american bar association, 20,000 members. judges, defense lawyers, professor andaw professor other personnel. view ofo talk about the collateral sanctions and how it convictions. it also highlights some of what the american bar association has done. american legal system has long recognized certain resultities or sanctions from a criminal conviction in addition to a sentence. be a press scribed

sentence related to a crime but attached to sanctions or dissabilities that are also sentence. the these collateral convictions of conviction include, deportation, alliances,fession and eligibility for certain even awelfare benefit, loss of a driver's license. collateral consequences have variety anding in sweavty. they have accumulated with state andrdination in federal laws making it almost impossible to determine all of applicable in sanctions.

as the chairman mentioned, keeping firearms out of the hands of persons convicted of violence. or denying driving privileges of those convicted of aggravated suicide. others are difficult to especially when they are applied across the board. seriousts in implications, not only in terms prosecutor,and as a i can say this, not only in regards to fairness but also to resulting burdens on the community, the citizens. collateral consequences can present challenges to reentry. reentry is very important. prosecutors, local prosecutors there the country have spear headed reentry programs because this as a public safety

issue. don't have anyny public safety.h employment to represents one of the more difficult issues facing, i think system and our nation. the realty is ex-offenders who find job that provide sufficient income to support familiess and their are more like to commit more criminal acts and find back in prison. the american bar association has set of principles sanctions.ollateral they have two primary goals. of to encourage awareness the consequences of a conviction. so when someone is convicted what is going to

happen. secondly, to focus on the impact collateral consequences on convicteds by which a into reentry and be a productive member of the community. they call for a significant forms to the law. the law souled identify the severity of the collateral sanctions. so everyone know what is it is. collateral consequences project, which is funded by the justice institute of and is completed by the american bar association, is something by congress.orized we started it in 2009. and we haveleted it adopted and found 4,000 collateral consequences. is we can categorize these and everyone knows they the public and that

way everyone can understand what consequences are, they are readily available and everyone know what is involved. you very much and i will be glad to answer any questions. >> thank you. mr. jones? >> thank you, we have a lot of cover in little time. 68 million people in this living with a criminal record. convictions.re 2.2 million people residing in prison. that is more than anywhere else in the world. thatber of the task force produced this collateral damage an opportunity to travel to every region of the people and talk to living with convictions. heardthern california, we from the chief of police who were dealing with the agnificant crime problem with

rising murder rate and distrust. solution, he realized he was policing from a fear.of that is his term. theas not serving community, he was at war with the community. not know thedid citizens they were policing. wasn't until he took the time to know the people he was he recognizedt their humanity. began to problem decline. 68 million people living with convictions. more than the entire population of france. danger of becoming a criminals. 15 million new arrests every year. 45,000 collateral consequences on the books in this country. 45,000 road blocks to the

recitation of rights and status after conviction. are leming slating from a slat- legislating from a place of fear. prosecution from and endless punishment to restoration.nd a great way for this task force to begin the healing process is to implement the first recommendation in our report. day every year where we can celebrate redemption and educationalwith programs for employers, skills training workshops for the community, job fairs, certificate of relief program not-cost opportunities to sheet.p your wrap more concretely, there are four steps to this task force can will have an immediate impact on the collateral damage con questionses.

first, you must repeal mandatory collateral consequences. living witheople convictions. theatory, automatic across board collateral consequences make no sense. you cannot paint with that broad a brush. there is no safety benefit in their rightople of to vote. eliminate mandatory consequences creating new once. second, you must provide federal relief with those living with federal cop convictions. we must create avenues for diversion in the criminal justice system. attorneys, prosecutors, and judges must be cognizant of opportunities and promote them. tailoredlize relief, taylored

to the individual. routinelyould be granted in the ordinary course of business. transparentmust be and aaccessible to all. dedicated staff committed to the review of pardon applications. for those discretionary there must be clearly established guidelines passage of time and evidence of rehabilitation. ofre should be a presumption irrelevance for any conviction number of years and anyone who has shown of rehabilitation. finally, background check regulated.ust be wrap sheets are not a commodity. market innot create a the buying and selling of

people's conviction records. some law enforcement sheets. that sell wrap any records disclosed must be accurate. of criminalrce record acquisition is wrong 50% of the time. it must be cleaned up an obtained. be a no-cost method for people to check their wrap sheet and make changes. the endless government intrusion of our citizens and the social and moral havoc viblgs and entire communities. we need a coherent national to forgiveness, to redemption and rights and status. >> thank you, mr. jones. the chair is going to put at the end of the question queue in case we run out of time all of the other

members can ask questions and at time, -- before recognizing the gentleman from virginia mr. scott. let me say the chair is going to inespecially vigilant enforcing the five-minute rule so everyone has a chance. [laughter] reputation of looking at the red light. mr. scott. mr. heck, the box that you have to check off to have been convicted of anelony, does that prevent employee looking at your criminal record? bar association does not take a position on that. discussions aare that have to be had on that. i think we're seeing a lot of that are associated

with that particular issue. if you don'tis, check off the box, it does not eliminate the employer's consideration and if the rell la veep to job.levant to the >> you are correct, congressman scott. it does not prevent an employer from having an employer to and determine relevancy. box does is get the person's foot in the door initially. it allows them to have an opportunity to prove their a job and do inore -- once an employer is a position to think this

the jobal is able to do and someone who we would like to employ. the venn a chance to review criminal record and decide if there is enough passage of time to determine it is not a factor. they have the opportunity to person'sevaluate the record. so ban the box is -- gottennever would have to that point to be considered box.u checked the a couple things that have not money.ed is a waste of california spent more money on higher education than prisons exceeded byons have large margin what they are spending on higher education. of money, crowds out things then is overincarceration

and children with parents in are also at high risk. you briefly, mr. heck, can tell me whether the automatic board collateral help keep people or add goingo jail unemployment making it more difficult to get a job. think it is counter productive. any type of across the board without looking at the particular offense and the particular offender is counter productive. >> what about education? the same way.s in ohio, we have dealt with that has in theislature same year. there is a number of alternatives that we offer to prison. i mean a number of different

alternatives. it makes no sense when we're talking about reentry, most of theindividuals who go to pen tenry are going to be released. we have to look at that on the front end. >> if you cut back on your right get an education, more education you get, the less you are to come back and isying someone an education counter productive. >> absolutely. >> have you studied the right toons of the vote? >> again, when the project that hasamerican bar association just completed looked into that a clat consequence. i don't see why someone is not restored. that is a fundamental right as as the american bar association should be respected restored.uld be >> studies that show any of the

mentioned? >> certainly, when you disenfranchise you disenfranchise. you don't want to take away vote or their participation in the democratic process. with respect to the money that the government spends on educating people to hold any barber license to be a for example. it makes no sense to educate licenseand give them a to be a barber and when they get out tell them they can't do that job. is counter productive and it to frustration. >> the time for the gentleman has expired. alabama.eman from mr. chairman. here in mr. jones' convictioninwith

recordses when charges are failure ofnd the private data companies hurts individuals. that is a little separate atuation but this -- is that big problem, too? >> that is a big problem. particularly when people are being denied opportunities a conviction, merely the arrest is enough in a person theeny opportunity. certainly, which enrecords are someone received a certificate of relief from beenility, someone has pardon, they are not added to not known.and they hurt the person off the bat. and manyan arrest, times not an arrest that leads a conviction. bewhat about what can reported in a background check.

thehat violated when is process for combating that, do eeoc?ow or under the >> it is frequently violated, particularly in an age where you can get almost anything with a stroke.ick or a key frequently, employers and other aresion makers, landlords making decisions on less than oftente information and inaccurate information. there needs to be much greater, limited access to these records, greater regulation, opportunities for people to correct inaccurate information in their wrap sheet. these things with stricter guidelines and with no to correct the mistakes in their conviction sheets.or their wrap

>> do employers actually get the criminalrecord or or are theyo they told whether or not a person criteria? >> they are given the person's sheet. they can buy them and in some cases they can get them for a fee or not from law enforcement agencies. the employer or the decision maker has for a complete wrap sheet is far to loose and easily available. them.ey have withm a co-sponsor legislation with mr. scott of act, whichchance helps state and local agencies organizations improve prisoners nationwide. do you have any comments on the

second chance act and how it might help? >> with comments already made, prosecutors around the country and have started re-enter programs. looking up front of what is going to happen to an sentenced toho is knowing that, person is going to come back to the community, is missing the entire point what we're trying to do. we're trying to make productive of them.out as a prosecutor i can tell you prisoners ining pen tenry. whether it is to help with help someone get a job, have employment, having housing when they are released. i commend all of you for supporting that.

conyers. thisjust want you to know overcriminallization panel is one of the most important in the judiciary committee. ways to getg on the as much into legislative main stream as possible. welcome any thoughts that you have now or in the about this that is critical. morning, votes this and 2226 ray burn down the hall,

going to have personal of witnesses that negativerienced some collateral consequences so we only you invite not two distinguished lawyers but to join us if you can. of yout question to both is, how can we ramp this subject up as effectively and responsibly as possible without overdoing it or creating a that?sh or anything like do you have any thoughts on gentleman? >> i do. thank you for the question.

all, the project that n.h.i. andby the completed by the american bar association. we got because leahy.tor the american bar association and theof the immense project.the recognizing 45,000 collateral consequences. that congresss and the states use this database oft we have to identify all the different collateral sangses sanctions and to look at them say how effective are they? limit some, some have been or they have applied

forever. to limit some of those. we're hoping that congress will take advantage of this justental project that we jus completed and we plan to use it any way possible. >> we intend to. what about going beyond the bar?can you know there are dozens of law associatesns and across the country. about widening our approach so we can begin this discussion with them working off of the good initial work that started. >> i appreciate the question. again, i think your point is taken. as a former president of the district attorneys association, i know that district attorneys across the country are interested in this

project. i know we're going to have conversations about this. know state prosecutions associations are going to have and always concerned ann collateral sanctions and the effect it has on not only the offender but the community. >> you're giving a prosecutors a great new description here. always think of prosecutors are the bad guys who are trying to rack up as many convictions ash as many severe penalties possible. i think that's -- i think this is an incredible -- has there turn around?d of have we been making progress didn't know about or what? congressman, let me assure you that i believe i can on not on behalf of the

think most of the prosecutors realize that of this putting people away. that may have been the thought prosecutors years ago but that is not the thought today. the thought today is be smarter crime and identify the who must be prosecutor. time hasntleman's expired. texas.tleman from >> thank you and i appreciate here.ing this is a project that is near when ed to my heart and called and asked if i would participate in something, that was the problem i saw as a massive problem, over criticallization. criminalization.

want to beat their chests and show us how tough let's slap a criminal penalty on something. about, maybe 5,000 crimes. 18 u.s. codein where they ought to be. have wondered why in the world we have not been able to clean before?s up what i heard is it seems like firedtime a project gets up to clean up the criminal code ends up being a big santa claus christmas bag and people start trying to throw more and more in it and you lose and people go, i can't agree to that. i loved the idea but you have that in the bag and i can't agree to that and then it

loses it and nothing gets done. is one of my concerns as we go here. yeah, from people going, you're right. we have to stop this over have toization and we stop the militarization of many departments.ral a swat.a. doesn't need team neither does the department sake.cation for heaven's we should never have a poor little nerd who was trying to develop a new battery and he gets pulled over by three sub run off the road, thrown down because he didn't put a stinger he mailed to alaska with with a line through it. he put ground only but he did not put the sticker. we need to stop that. so people are getting that and on board anding when we say we're also looking

into whether or not maybe employers shouldn't be able to find out if you committed a they hire you. wait a minute. is a veryute, this sensitive industry and you tell get to know if he was stealing from his last job? to know if this person had molested people in i can tell you as a judge, in a case trying to protect people protected a child molester and it wasn't until he molested and destroyed other lives that he got stopped. the way the law was, didn'tenile probation know he had the other incidents because of the way he was protected. i'm concerned that we're getting an area that we've gone too

far if we're not too careful. it be appropriate for congress to force private to ignore someone's criminal history? >> thank you for the question. be crystal clear about ban the box. not prevent ans employer or other decision maker person'sbout the criminal record. there needs to be clear guidelines that adhere across the board so decision makers know what is relevant and what is not. opportunityto be an for an individual to get his his in the door to present credentials once those things makerse and the decision know and once the person has his foot in the door. many time is about to expire. isn't it true that those who access individual criminal

histories are subject to strict thelation regarding use of information under fair crediting act?ting >> that is correct. >> it is not wide enalready? >> thing are safeguards. think there are some abuses to it. i understand what he is saying. collateral consequences that are appropriate. >> thank you very much. back.d california.man from >> thank you mr. chair and the ranking member for holding this hearing. think this is such a critical issue for out nation. at my disss year trict, i had a town hall and we comeeveral hundred people talking about this subject. have as like we used to belief that if you paid your to society that you can be reintegrated. has happened what that we no longer have that

belief. in can spend some time prison but you can spend the rest of your life with the able tond not be appropriatedly reintegrate. state was in the legislature we had a law that said if you were a felon you not get a license to be a barber. at the same time, we had a barbering program where we taught prisoners how to be them toand not allowed be a barber when they left. we had to change that. you mentioned there should be a presumption of irrelevance. i understand what you mean in terms of getting your foot in door. so even say it was a conviction aom 30 years ago and i was college student or something like that. if you don't check that box and find out then you are

subject to immediate termination because you lied. are talking about a presumption of irrelevance or if you meant that is what we should cannd i want to know how we go about that. question.ou for the there are studies that suggest number of a certain years, a person's conviction person is less likely -- is no more likely and in some are less likely to reoffend than anyone in the general society. when we're talking about evaluating a criminal record on not they should be accessible to an opportunity or do ist what we need to look at whether or not there is any relevance to the opportunity, what the passage of time has been, and whether or evidence of any rehabilitation.

when the passage of time has ofn such and evidence rehabilitation there ought to be irrelevancen of that the conviction is no longer ought toif this person have the opportunity. >> i agree with you but how do we do it? law that says that? exemptuming you would certain types of crimes? >> exactly, there has to be guidelines set out for decision makers and landlords and others. be guidelines that clearly instruct employers what and what the passage of time is so that people and know that we're all playing by the same rules. once we have the guidelines and playing by the same rules there ought to be a presumption irrelevance. >> one of you, i'm not sure theh one, made reference to f.b.i. website is wrong a

significant amount of time. wrong?it wrong people are listed? listed?arges are >> i'm not sure what you are referring to except to say so many times when we have the silver streaks or we have the histories of convictions, many data people who input that it is incorrect. i think not only -- the wrongd be both charges and the wrong people. >> exactly, i find out when looking at defendants who we have charged in my office. assistant prosecutors will try to get a record check and we to make surem that it is accurate. many times inputting that data goes theay it identification is wrong. >> i've a piece of legislation introduced called the success act, which is looking at a piece of collateral damage. that young people who have a certain crime cannot get

aid.cial i'm wondering if in the tens of thousands of collateral damage examples that you two have talked about, are there a number tothem that relate education? >> i think a lot of them do relate to education either indirectly. i think the idea of preventing aung people who may have made mistake from making amends, from they are supposed to do and later in life restricting from having the education that benefits not only them but society. no sense at all. >> there is a public safety allows young people to get an education. >> the gentleman from new york, mr. jeffreys. >> let me thank you for your testimony and for your work on this very important issue. let me start with mr. heck.

you testified earlier today, i believe appropriate lier that automatic blanket, across the imposition. consequencesteral that you believe may be appropriate in certain narrowlynces are tailored to fit the severity of broadlye so we don't sweep into individuals into this blanket fashion? >> i appreciate the question. do think some collateral qon consequences are applied so are notacross the board relevant to that individual offender. the law ist is what not looking at. for example, in ohio if someone owes child support and they are not paying their driver's

license is suspended. is so ridiculous. i told my prosecutors who handle of cases that we're not going to ask for that. it shouldn't be done. person to payhe child support and we're asking to not have a job to pay it. some are appropriate. >> when we craft the law, who given the discretion as to appropriate collateral if one ise appropriate under limited circumstances? should it be the court? have that prosecutor opportunity? i don't know that everyone is as enlightened as you are. who should have that opportunity? >> there has been a lot of suggestionings on that. thelieve it should be court. i think the judges are in a

unique position to see both sides of the denominator and they should make the judgment. >> mr. jones, do you have thoughts on that? >> i think everyone in the be aware,ds to educated, updated, everyone it, everynderstand step of the process the implication of collateral as we go through the process. relief inthat sentencing by the judges to be tailor to the individuals and remove and repeal consequences that are no longer rel relevant is a good t. needs to be aware of the consequences and their impact. mentioned 45,000 collateral consequences, which staggering number. so that is a difficult undertaking but one that is

necessary. we as a task force is going to have to think through how to andte greater transparency take steps, in my opinion, to reduce many 68 million people in america are living with convictions, isn't that right? yes. >> 20 million have felony convictions which mathematically i gather would a leave of 8 million a with misdemeanors convictions. to look at this issue in terms of collateral consequences, has any work been done to look at the consequences associated with those convicted of felonies versus the consequences associated with those convicted of misdemeanors and is irrelevant for us to think through the issue in that