>> well, that's not what the record says, mr. garre. >> i thought what happened here was 5 to 15 minutes. >> i mean, the record suggests that he put the dog on a very long leash, the dog goes back and forth, tries to figure out where the smell is coming from. it's not just -- you know, my first thought was you go up to the door, the dog barks once, and that's it. but you read the record, this dog is there for some extended period of time, going back and forth and back and forth, trying to figure out where the greatest concentration of the smell is. it actually seemed, from my reading of the record, to be, you know, a lengthy and obtrusive process. >> your honor, i think what the record shows is, is that the dog was on the scene, i.e., at the curb, walking up, going back into the car, and then leaving, for a total of 5 to 10 minutes. walking up to the front steps, sniffing, alerting and leaving is a matter of seconds or minutes. it's not -- the dog isn't up there for 5 to 10 minutes. it happens very quickly. i think in thinking about re

mr. garre. >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court -- in the three prior cases in which this court has held that a dog sniff is not a search, this court has emphasized that a dog sniff is unique, both in terms of the manner in which information is obtained and the nature of the information revealed. as to the latter point, this court has emphasized that a drug detection dog reveals only the presence of contraband, and no one has a legitimate expectation of privacy in that. >> i mean, that just can't be a proposition that we can accept across the board. nobody under that view has an interest in contraband in their home. the question is, can you find out the contraband? it's just a circular argument. and if -- and in the -- was it the caballes case that talked about that, if i have the right name? that was where the contraband was visible, it was almost like the smoking gun falls out. well, of course, there's no interest in the smoking gun when it falls out in front of you. so i just don't thin

mr. garre. >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court -- in the three prior cases in which this court has held that a dog sniff is not a search, this court has emphasized that a dog sniff is unique, both in terms of the manner in which information is obtained and the nature of the information revealed. as to the latter point, this court has emphasized that a drug detection dog reveals only the presence of contraband, and that no one has a legitimate expectation of privacy in that. >> i mean, that just can't be a proposition that we can accept across the board. nobody under that view has an interest in contraband in their ome. the question is, can you find out the contraband? it's just a circular argument. and if -- and in the -- was it the caballes case that talked about that, if i have the right name? that was where the contraband was visible, it was almost like the smoking gun falls out. well, of course, there's no interest in the smoking gun when it falls out in front of you. so i just don't

garr i'm going to pick up another chart. the issue you race -- mr. garamendi: let me pick up another chart. the issue you raised is one. ms. norton: i'm very glad my good friend from california does have a way to illustrate all of these points. not only does he reduce the top rate from 39.6% -- that's how much the very richest would pay, the 25%. but you may say, well, but he's got a 10% rate in there, essentially for everybody else. well, if everybody else pays 10% and the very richest pay 25%, there would be no revenue for the federal government. so all we're saying about medicare and medicaid would mean there would be no revenue to fund them. and that seems to be his point. get so little revenue coming into the federal government itself that in and of will mean you have to have cuts and get rid of these programs that we've been building for 50 years. mr. garamendi: i ran over and got this chart. i wasn't going to talk about this this evening but you brought the issue up about where the money has gone and the issue of tax breaks. l.a. this chart be