There are Russian Forces in ukraine, we believe they are responsible for commanding control, arming, financing directing of this conflict. We also believe there are many hundreds of russian dead in ukraine edit does pose a vulnerability for the kremlin politically at home. One quick point. I read in your statement, is its not accurate that as these bodies are returning to russia, russian families of the dead shoulders soldiers are told do not comment on it or they are denied death benefits . Yes. Thank you. Senator mendez had a closing question. Thank you. Madam secretary the budapest memorandum was basically a way to entice the craniums to give up their nuclear weapons, is that it are statement . At the time, the primary intent was for russia to get russia to a short ukraine it would not seek to take advantage of ukraines sovereignty and territorial integrity if it gave out its weapons. There was never an intent to have treaty obligations. You said it was a political agreement, right . So, we also signed that political agreement. You say the concern for ukraine was russiaa not seeking to attack it. If it did what . Give up its nuclear weapons. That is the essence of what was induced from the craniums. Is that not fair to say . We just join with Great Britain and others to sort of give them the comfort of his political agreement. It was to give up their political weapons because otherwise, there is no reason for such an agreement. They also thought sought we obviously have not done that. The entire purpose of it was to guarantee territorial integrity and not to face the threat from any of these powers. If it did what . Give up its nuclear weapons. Is that correct . It is about giving up their nuclear weapons. So, how is this political agreement different from the one we are trying to strike with a run . Isnt the agreement we are trying to strike a political agreement . It is not a treaty obligation. I am not qualified to get into the deal were trying to strike with iran. Im not asking about the agreement. That is for another time. The question is, it seems to me that what we have heard from the administration as it relates to iran is to say that it is not going to be a treaty therefore congress does not need to have a say. It will be basically a political agreement. If that is the case, we need to know the nature of what that means as i see it unfolding here in the budapest memorandum which was a political agreement ultimately to entice the craniums to give up their nuclear weapons, which they did. The craniums to give up their nuclear weapons, which they did. I dont see the difference and i do think it is very much on point. It raises concerns for me ask you where we are going but you tell me you are not capable of answering that question. Let me say with regard to the budapest political commitment, the u. S. Lived up to its commitments under budapest so it is the concern of whether the United States on his political commitments like treaties, i think one can be richard by our behavior one can be reassured. We never had an intention of interfering with the cranes territorial the u kraines territorial. That political agreement with these powers was that we would be supportive of their security and their territorial integrity but that at this point, we have not done anything to a different with its integrity but i think the ukraineians would feel it fell short of that. At the end of the day, it is a political agreement that can be interpreted as those designed it wish to interpret it. That is a counting proposition challenging proposition. We thank you all for your testimony. It has been very unsatisfying for me i would ask the secretary who does need with people constantly around the world, surely on the heels of us never doing the things we said we would do with the free Syrian Rebels and now, the world being very aware of this budapest memorandum and knowing the administration i assume this is another decision from the president s desk i decided undecided this past you have affected has to have affected our credibility with others around the world. I would love to have your sense of that and how damaging our lack of ability to make simple decisions they certainly have complex outcomes but the decisions themselves are relatively simple. Certainly, i was supported by congress. We are all in this together should a decision be made but i would like to get your sense of how badly on the heels again of what we never did in syria, the red line that was never adhered to in this particular issue which is so important to world stability. I would love to get a sense of how this is affecting us with others. Chairman, i would say with regard to my patch, europeans do see these strong bipartisan support for ukraine whether it is on the economic side or the security side. We have done far more than most nations in the transatlantic space to support ukraine. I think our leadership is recognized. We are having a spirited debate on some of these questions. Theres also a transatlantic debate so that question gets asked also. Europeans come at it from both sides, depending upon where they said. We will have the record questions and move into the second panel. I would say that i have very much enjoyed our conversation. You have been very forward with your statements regarding ukraine and the things that need to be done at that has been appreciated. And that has been appreciated by most of us. I would at this point, it is a difficulty coming to work each day with these decisions lingering the way they had and us not taking the steps that many people would end administration as i understand it feel needs to be taken and we continue for some reason not to do those things that we acted as if we might do. I have a number of other questions i will send in writing. I think you all for being here. I realize you are messengers and not the ones setting at your desk with these. We appreciate your candid testimony. Our first witness is john cornyn bluhm. Our second and final witness is former u. S. Ambassador to ukraine john her ptz. As you are getting seated and comfortable, we will begin with ambassador cornblum. Ambassador, i want to thank you for being here. I know you are a resident of nashville and we are always glad to have really bright people from nashville here testifying. We would appreciate it if you would begin. Thank you. You might be even more pleased to learn i have very direct contact with another city in tennessee. This may or will be at a meeting in berlin to talk about the tremendous success we have had an revitalizing the city and the supporting entrepreneurship there. I think you had a little to do with that effort. I am very pleased to be here both because of my tidy tennessee and also to tieto tennessee. I was the assistant secretary during this entire period. I participated in the negotiation of most of them. To you and do Ranking Member mendez, i am pleased to be here. I have a very special point to make. You have heard in their good detail how very good detail about how our government sees things. I think we need to think about the direction of this conflict and the definition. My own view is i have been living in germany for a long time now and i think i can say with a certain amount of accuracy that whatever we are doing in ukraine and with russia, we are losing the Public Affairs battle on this crisis the narrative as we say. The narrative that is most prevalent in the United States but more so in europe is that this is a russia which is reacting angrily because it was cheated, misuse by the west after 1990. I think it is important we focus on this fact because many of the decisions will depend considerably upon whether the russians believe they have the upper hand on this aspect of the crisis and whether we can maintain a strong situation, a strong direction. The fact is after 1990, we dealt with the russian leadership. We saw the collapse of the soviet union as a liberation and not a western attack on russia. They knew exactly what our plans were. We talked to them in detail about it. We did not talk about the details of nato or Eu Enlargement but we told them are go for them and europe was to establish democracy, the free market system, and to allow russia to join the rest of world western world. In many discussions, we worked very hard to make this point not only clear but to establish things to make it real. Now, 25 years later for me, the narrative of this crisis is not whether russia somehow is now a wounded power, but the fact the United States has three administrations establishing it when the Baltic States and now hopefully ukraine also a community of nearly one million persons, which is democratic, secure oriented towards free markets and which ones to be part of the western and a world. I say and atlantic world. You have to remember what the situation was 25 years ago. We had to western part of the continent democratized. The eastern art was mildly a mess. When we first came in to establish relations with the new governments in poland, hungary we found they hardly had basic conditions for modern society. The collaborations within nato and with strong leadership of these countries has in fact succeeded. Many of the reasons we have this conflict with russia now is not because ukraine violated orders or because russia has somehow felt threatened by the west. It is because russian leadership after the beginning of this century has covered its own misdeeds with an increasing authoritarian system. They find the companies on their periphery this is a basic point. It leads to strategy. It suggests that entering into negotiations with the russians over how to conclude this crisis are not very relevant at the moment. There is not any new Security System which we can offer the russians which would not include giving them a spear of influence within these countries we are trying to protect. There is not any military arrangement we can enter with the russians that would not somehow limit our ability to defend these countries that have become democratic. Theres not any new Political Forum that would change the fact the real reason that putin and his cohorts feel threatened is not because anything we have done and not because of a nato sanctioned even although i favor them, but because of things such as the oil price russias lack of investments in the hightech sector their inability to build infrastructure necessary or a modern, industrial economy, etc. It also has to do with the fact that russia has in fact also failed to have the Political Leadership since 2000 which else is population come out of the shock of the end of the cold war and to understand how closely it interests are involved with being part of the west. We have a situation now which is important for all the reasons our government officials mentioned today. They have given a very comprehensive view of what is going on. We are facing an even larger challenge, a challenge that only a challenge to europe but a challenge across the world. That is that russia is caught justly or by accident taking a growing unease around the world at the dislocations caused by globalization, the modern Information Technology world what is happening with the dislocation of industries, and the russians have been able to harness this dissatisfaction in their own country. I can tell you i have a lot of experience. I have been living in berlin. These arguments have affect in western europe and other parts of the world. Add to that one of the senators mentioned, russia is financing with very large efforts in western europe to movements trying to undermine the western system. Russia is also continuing to threaten in one way or the other the weakest points of our system, such as the Baltic States, such as the republic of georgia where i worked quite diligently in recent years. We are facing not just the question, and an important question. My wife grew up in the grainy and community Ukrainian Community in hartford so we are very committed to ukraine but the real challenge of this crisis is that russia, after immense effort on the part of the west and i must say immense efforts has broken out of the general of unity channel of unity and Cooperation Among the countries of europe and is now adapting an antiwestern and antiglobalization approach. To understand the importance of this, there was an article in the Washington Post this week talking about the rhetoric being used inside china about the west and it turns out to be almost word for word the same rhetoric russia is using. The same rhetoric is heard in the middle east come even and yet, which we consider to be an important partner. Putin has been visiting and the indian leadership more or less agreed with what he was saying. Were talking not just about a problem with russia, which is important, we are talking in fact about a wearing away at the foundations of the western community in europe but even more so a wearing away of the ability the west has to influence, control the content of the new globalized world which is coming up. So that is the man consequence i see in this conflict. My final point would be im very appreciative of europes personal efforts to increase our information budgets. I think winning back the narrative and using tools such as the one you are financing are almost as important as considering military support for ukraine, which i support strongly. Thank you. Thank you. Ambassador. Chairman, Ranking Members thank you for this chance to testify. I have been asked to talk about sorry. I have been asked to talk about from one aggression kremlin aggression in ukraine. We need a wider lens. The are people in United States who do not understand the gravity of this crisis. They dont understand because they think the crisis is about ukraine and moscows aggression there. With that now understanding they opposed strong measures necessary to secure vital american interests. The crisis we face is a crisis of kremlin revisionism. Putin does wha to overturn the post wo cold war era. This has been the foundation of peace and prosperity the entire world has enjoyed over the past 25 years. Putin stated he must have a spear of influence in the postsoviet space. He said he has the right to protect ethnic russians and speakers wherever they reside. He has major resources to pursue aggression. He possesses the worlds sixth largest economy, the worlds two largest new where arsenals and the Strongest Military in europe. We all know we has committed multiple acts of aggression in georgia in 2008, primarily last year and since april, he has conducted an increasingly over covert war in ukraines east. In this war, he has escalated intervention multiple times. He has agreed to two ceasefires. He has violated each one of them. His goal in ukraine is what the admiral said earlier today to destabilize the country. But to achieve that, and this is not understood, he cannot settle for a frozen conflict. He needs to be regularly on the offensive with tactical pauses. He has made clear by his statements and actions that if he succeeds in ukraine there will be future targets. They may include nato allies specifically of estonia where russian speakers comprise 20 of the population. Recent, provocations include the kidnapping of an estonian intelligence official. That happened on the david nato summit ended in september. They included the seizure of a loved when he and of a lift when he and lithuanian ship. We have a vital interest in stopping moscows policies before they moved to other countries, especially to the Baltic States. I think it was senator isakson who said the kremlin menace is the most Important National security danger we face today. I endorse that. Isil is a ragtag project terrorists. Not an existential threat to the United States. Moscow is an existential threat to the United States. Iran with its Nuclear Program is not in the same order of threat with the world to Largest Nuclear powers on the move. If western leaders understand this danger, they would devote substantially more resources to dealing with it and they would draw a bright red line in ukraine. Stop putin before he moves the on ukraine. Today, western policy has been slow reactive and all too concerned about giving mr. Putin a the layout of the crisis and not focused on a cost that would make it too expensive to continue. We had a distinguished panel. They were all too reflective of slow, reactive approach. To persuade putin to put aside his revisionist dreams we need to do things that prey on his weaknesses. Strong sentence or part of this. We have to deal with his economy. Strong sanctions are a part of this. We have to prove that by announcing strong additional sanctions for aggressions to come, why cant we tell him now what sanctions we play down if he moves beyond the current ceasefire . He asked a very good question. We need to have sanctions for place now in place now. It will weaken his economy, his Political Support at home, and give him fewer resources for his next aggression. I get the Obama Administration good marks for doing what sanctions because they are trying to pull along somewhat reluctant europe. The other area we need to work on is on security. Mr. Putin has a serious portability. That is why he is a lying to them, that is why the russian are buried in secret and the families are told if you tell the neighbors your son died and thought in ukraine and fought in ukraine, you will not get benefits. If he goes further into the crank on the ukraine, he suffers those casualties. This i was a one of group of eight former officials who produced a report on this we suggest giving ukraine 1 billion a year for each of the next three years, 3 billion of weapons total. The report provides the details. I want to mention just two elements of that. One, we should be providing antiarmor equipment because the russians have used mass tanks in order to commit their aggression in ukraine. We should also be providing counter battery radar for missiles because ukrainians have suffered 70 of their casualties from russian missiles. Were giving them anticounter battery radar for mortars. Theyre needed for missiles. We also need to keep in place the sanctions for the seizure of crimea. Is and the Atlantic Council just released a report of substantial russian human rights violation is in crimea. Two other essential elements of our policy. We need to do more in nato to bolster the deterrence to russian aggression against the Baltic States. The administration and nato have taken some good stems forward. We also talked about creating this Rapid Reaction force and deploying a company of soldiers to the Baltic States. Thats a nice first step but its very small. We should put a battalion into estonia and the other Baltic States properly armed as a serious trip wire against further russian aggression. We need to make sure that nato has a contingency plan dealing for a war in the Baltic States. Especially vulnerable is a russianspeaking enclave of estonia. Finally, we need to do the right thing in the information war against russia. John mentioned that. I know this Committee Supports additional funding for Radio Free Europe and radio liberty. This is important for offsetting the massive russia propaganda campaign. These four steps, will give us a good, good start in stopping mr. Putin in ukraine, making sure he doesnt go beyond ukraine. Again, this is a vital american interest. Thank you both for outstanding testimony and im going to defer questions at this moment to senator menendez. Thank you, chairman and thank you both for your service at other times. Always great to welcome a fellow tennessean. We have a great tennessean here is your chairman and we should all be very proud of him. I think youve laid out a pretty compelling case, probably done it better than ive been successful at trying to do in terms of the importance of it. You spent time in kiev as our ambassador, had a lot of time to observe president putins behavior towards his neighbors. I think you largely already referred to his intentions but would you expect, for example, if unchecked, Russian Forces to move into mariupol . Mr. Putin cannot expect a frozen conflict. Then ukraine could develop as a stable democratic prosperous state and thats what hes against. Thats the most likely target but not the only one. He could move further into the northern participates. Russians have been conducting a Terror Campaign in kharkov but theyve been unable to establish the russians have been unable to establish a clear presence there. Theyll probe there. Theyll move wherever they can with the least casualties to themselves and the least uproar in europe. We need to provide ukraine the means to stop that from happening. Otherwise hell continue to go forward. Let me ask you to answer questions that are often posed in a contrary view to mine, that providing defensive lethal weapons to ukraine would create Serious Problems with europe or that providing such weapons would just lead russia to further escalate. What would you say in response to those questions . Ill start with the second because the answer is quicker. Mr. Putin escalated half a dozen times because hes had no pushback. You push back, the chance of him escalating go down. Thats the second question. The first question i watched very carefully chancellor merkels visit to washington in february. She said that she opposing sending weapons to ukraine. She also said that if the United States were to do that she would work hard to make sure that theres no transatlantic disease harmony. That is an amber light, a like which we cant go through because she understands the United States may ultimately make the intelligent decision to provide ukraine the weapons to defend himself. I dont have any doubt that we could manage the alliance in this what you need the strong leadership, which unfortunately we have not seen. Strong leadership from washington in europe and nato. With that, this is manageable. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Jim, i apologize for not having questions at this moment. I have to get to a meeting at 12 this has been a very long but a very informative meeting. I want to thank you both for your testimony and well have some written questions wed like for you to respond to. I do think the strategy youve laid out, ambassador, is very clear, very helpful. I think, ambassador kornblum the insights into whats driving russia were also very helpful. We appreciate you both, your service to our country for being here as an asset as we try to serve our country. With that, this meeting the questions i guess will be open until march 12 so if people have questions theyll send those in and hopefully youll respond promptly to those. We thank you again for being here. The meeting is adjourned. He will be joined by secretary of state john kerry and joint chiefs of staff general martin dempsey. Live coverage of the hearing on cspan. Live at 2 30, secretary carter will hold a joint News Conference with British Defense minister Michael Fallon at the pentagon. They will discuss military relations. Here are some of our featured programs for this weekend. Saturday, cspan2 book tv, live from the university of arizona. Featuring discussions on politics, the civil war, and why nation magazine writers. We continue live coverage on the Obama Administration. The future of politics and the issue of football. Saturday morning, American History tv on cspan3. The 16th annual civil war seminar, historians and authors talking about the closing weeks of the civil war. Find our complete Television Schedule at cspan. Org and let us know what you think about it. Join the cspan conversation. Like us on facebook. Hillary clinton spoke with reporters about her use of a private email account. She made the remarks at a speech for womens issues at the United Nations. The News Conferences 20 minutes. Secretary clinton good afternoon. I want to thank the United Nations for hosting todays events and putting the challenge of gender equality front and center on the international agenda. I am especially pleased to have so many leaders hear from the private sector Standing Shoulder to shoulder with advocates who have worked tirelessly for equality for decades. 20 years ago, this was a lonelier struggle. Today, we mark the progress that has been made in the two decades since the International Community gathered in beijing and declared with one voice that human rights are womens rights and womens rights are human rights. We can say that there has never been a better time in history to be born female. Yet as the comprehensive new report published by the Clinton Foundation and the Gates Foundation this week makes clear, despite all this progress, when it comes to the full participation of women and girls, we are just not there yet. As i said today, this remains the great Unfinished Business of the 21st century. And my passion for this fight burns as brightly today as it did 20 years ago. I want to comment on a matter in the news today regarding iran. The president and his team are in the midst of intense negotiations. Their goal is a diplomatic solution that would close off irans pathway to a nuclear bomb and give us unprecedented access an insight into irans Nuclear Program. Reasonable people can disagree about what exactly it will take to accomplish this objective. And we all must judge any final agreement on its merits. But the recent letter from republican senators was out of step with the best traditions of american leadership. And one has to ask what was the purpose of this letter. There appeare to be two logical answers. Either these senators were trying to be helpful to the iranians or harmful to the commanderinchief in the midst of highstakes international diplomacy. Either answer does discredit to the letters signatories. I would be pleased to talk more about this important matter but i know there have been questions about my emails so i want to address that directly and then i will take if you questions from you. There are four things i want the public to know. First, when i got to work as secretary of state, i opted for convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed by the state department, because i thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two. Looking back, it would have been better had i simply used a second email account and carried a second phone. But at the time, this did not seem like an issue. Second, the vast majority of my work emails went to Government Employees at their government addresses, which meant they were captured and preserved immediately on the system at the state department. Third, after i left office, the state department asked former secretaries of state for our assistance in providing copies of workrelated emails from our personal accounts. I responded right away and provided all my emails that could possibly be workrelated which totaled roughly 55,000 printed pages, even though i knew that the state Department Already had the vast majority of them. We went through a thorough process to identify all of my workrelated emails and deliver them to the state department. At the end, i chose not to keep my private, personal emails emails about planning chelseas wedding or my mothers funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends as well as yoga routines, family vacations, the other things you typically find in inboxes. No one wants their personal emails made public and i think most people understand that and respect that privacy. Fourth, i took the unprecedented step of asking that the state department make all my workrelated emails public for everyone to see. I am very proud of the work that i and my colleagues and our Public Servants at the department did during my four years as secretary of state. And i look forward to people being able to see that for themselves. Again, looking back, it would have been better for me to use two separate phones and two email accounts. I thought using one device would be simpler and obviously it hasnt worked out that way. Now i am happy to take a few questions. Nick is calling on people. Madam secretary, on behalf of the un correspondents association, thank you very much for your remarks and its wonderful to see you here again. Madam secretary, why did you opt out using two devices at the time . If this hadnt come out, it probably would not have been an issue. If you are a man today, would all this fuss be made . Secretary clinton i will leave that to others to answer. But as i said, i saw it as a matter of convenience and it was allowed. Others had done it. According to the state department, which recently said secretary kerry was the first secretary of state to rely primarily on a state. Gov email account. And when i got there, i just wanted to use one device for both personal and work emails instead of two. It was allowed. As i said, it was for convenience. And it was my practice to communicate with state department and other government officials on their. Gov accounts so those emails would be automatically saved in the state Department System to meet recordkeeping requirements. That indeed is what happened. I heard just a little while ago the state department will begin to post some of my emails which i am very glad to hear because i want it all out there. Andrea, thank you. Can you explain how you decided which of the personal emails to get rid of, how you got rid of them and when . And how you will respond to questions about you being the arbiter of what you release . And can you answer the questions raised about foreign contributions from middle eastern countries, like saudi arabia, that abuse women or permit violence against women to the Family Foundation . You are rightly celebrating 20 years of leadership on this issue. Secretary clinton those are two very different questions i will give you some background. In going through the emails there were over 60,000 in total sent and received. About half were workrelated and went to the state department and half for personal that were not in any way related to my work. I had no reason to save them but that was my decision because the federal guidelines are clear and the state Department Request was clear. For any government employee, it is that employees responsibility to determine what is workrelated. I am confident of the business we conducted and the emails that were produced. And i feel once the American Public begins to see the emails, they will have an unprecedented insight into a high government officials daily communications, which i think will be quite interesting. With respect to the foundation i am very proud of the work the foundation does. I am very proud of the hundreds of thousands of people who support the work of the foundation and the results that have been achieved for people here at home and around the world. I think that we are very clear about where we stand, certainly where i stand, on all of these issues. There cant be any mistake about my passion concerning womens rights here at home and around the world. So i think that people who want to support the Foundation Know full well what it is we stand for and what we are working on. I was wondering if you think you made a mistake in exclusively using your private email or the response to the controversy. If so, what have you learned from that . Secretary clinton looking back, it would have been probably smarter to have used two devices. But i have absolute confidence that everything that could be in any way connected to work is now in the possession of the state department. And i have to add, even if i had had to devices, which is obviously permitted many people do that you would still have to put the responsibility where it belongs, which is on the official. I did it for convenience and now, looking back, think that it might have been better to have two devices from the very beginning. Did you or any of your aides delete any governmentrelated emails from your personal account . What lengths are you willing to go to to prove that you didnt . Some, including supporters of you, have suggested an independent arbiter. Secretary clinton we did not my direction to conduct the thorough investigation was to err on the side of providing anything that might be workrelated. Out of an abundance of caution and care, we wanted to send that message unequivocally. That is the responsibility of the individual and i have fulfilled that responsibility and i have no doubt that we have done exactly what we should have done. When the search was conducted, we were asking that any email be identified and preserved that could potentially be federal record. And that is exactly what we did. And we went beyond that and the process produce over 30,000 work emails. And i think that we have more than that in the request from the state department. The server contains personal communications from my husband and me. I believe i have met all of my responsibilities. And the server will remain private. I think the state department will be able over time to release all of the records that were provided. Madam secretary, two quick followups. You mentioned the server. That is one of the distinctions here. This was not gmail or yahoo . That is a server that you own appeared is that appropriate . Was there any precedent for it . Did you cleared with any officials . Did they have full access to it when your secretary . Will any of this have any bearing or affect on your timing or decision about whether or not you run for president . Secretary clinton the system we used was set up for president clintons office. It had numerous safeguards. It was guarded by the secret service and there were no security breaches. So i think that the use of that server, which started with my husband, certainly proved to be effective and secure. Now with respect to any sort of future issues, look, i trust the American People to make their decisions about political and public matters. I feel that i have taken unprecedented steps to provide these workrelated emails. They will be in the Public Domain. And i think that americans will find that interesting and i look forward to having a discussion about that. Madam secretary, how can the public be assured that, when you deleted emails that were personal in nature, you did not also delete emails that were professional and possibly unflattering . What do you think about this republican idea of having an independent thirdparty come in and examine your emails . Secretary clinton first of all, you would have to asset question to every single federal employee. The way the system works, the federal employee, the individual, whether they have one device, two devices, three devices, how many addresses, they make the decision. So even if you have a workrelated device, with a workrelated. Gov account, you choose what goes on that. That is the way our system works. We trust and count on the judgment of thousands, maybe millions of people to make those decisions. I feel that i did that and even more, that i went above and beyond what i was requested to do. And again, those will be out in the Public Domain and people will be able to judge for themselves. Madam secretary, madam secretary excuse me madam secretary, state department rules when you are secretary at the time were perfectly clear that that the employee needed to turn over those emails to be preserved on government computers. Why did you not do that . Why did you not go along with state department rules until nearly two years after he left office . Also, the president of the United States said he was unaware that you had this unusual email arrangement. The White House Counsel Office said you never approved this through them. Why have you apparently caught the white house by surprise . [laughter] does all of this affect your decision in any way on whether or not to run for president . Secretary clinton let me try to unpack your multiple questions. First, the laws and regulations in effect when i was secretary of state allowed me to use my email for work. That is undisputed. Secondly, under the federal records act, records are defined as reported information regardless of its form or characteristic. And in meeting the recordkeeping obligation, it was my practice to email government officials on their state or other. Gov accounts so the emails were immediately captured and preserved. Now there are different rules governing the white house than there are governing the rest of the executive branch. In order to address the requirements i was under, i did exactly what i have said. I emailed to people and i not only knew but expected them to be captured in the state department or any other Government Agency that i was emailing to at a. Gov account. What happened in, i guess, late summer, early fall was that the state department sent a letter to former secretaries of state not just to me, asking for some assistance in providing any workrelated emails that might be on the personal email. And what i did was to direct my counsel to conduct a thorough investigation and to err on the side of providing anything that could be connected to work. They did that. That was my obligation. I fully fulfilled it and then i took the unprecedented step of saying, go ahead and release them and let people see them. Why did you wait two months . Why did you wait two months to turn those emails over . Secretary clinton i would be happy to have somebody talk to you about the rules. I fully complied. Were you ever fully briefed on using your personal address email with the president . Secretary clinton i did not email any classified materials to anyone on my email. There is no classified material. I am certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material. [indiscernible] secretary clinton because they were personal and private about matters that i believed were within the scope of my personal privacy. And that particularly of other people. They had nothing to do with work. I didnt see any reason to keep them. At the end of the process. [indiscernible] forced to resign two years ago because of his use of personal email. Secretary clinton i think you should go online and read the entire ig report. That is not an accurate representation of what happened. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all. A review of the release of Hillary Clintons 55,000 pages of emails. Here is a look. That is consistent with what we have been discussing internally. Let me give you a brief update. We will read the set and release in one batch the end of that review to ensure standards are consistently applied through the pages. We expect the review to take several months. There we posted on a publicly available website. The only document from the review of the emails we sent to the committee will be released prior to the release of the entire set. Even if you havent filed a request youre going to be able to see these, youre going to put them up publicly. Yes. They will be publicly available. Do you have any idea on how much time it will take to go through them by hand . Are we talking 900 pages. 300 emails. It is shorter than 35 thousand. I do have an accident did it is sure that the d5000. I do have an estimate. Specific criteria would include national security, privacy trade secrets, among others. We will identify the means for any reductions. Did anyone ask given the amount of volume to this, did you ask for an electronic version . I dont believe so. See the full briefing on our Video Library any time at cspan. Org. On the next washington journal, the conversation about the war powers act. Our guest is benjamin what is and we talked to daniel of the American Enterprise institute. Washington journal is live on cspan every day, taking your phone calls, tweets, facebook comments. This sunday, the director of the georgetown anniversary the promotion of a drug starts 710 years before a drug comes on the market. While it is illegal for a company to market a drug before it is approved by the fda, it is not a legal to market the disease. Drug companies have invented diseases, or exaggerated the importance of certain conditions, or exaggerated the importance of a mechanism of a drug, and then blanketed medical journals and meetings, and other venues with these messages that are meant to prepare the minds of clinicians to accept if except a particular drug, and consumers to accept a particular condition. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments recently on whether police can conduct a warrantless search of hotel guest registries. City officials argue the law is needed to allow police to investigate crimes like sex trafficking and prostitution. Lower courts so did sided with hotels and motels. This is about an hour. Argument first this morning in case 131175, the city of los angeles vs. Patel. Mr. Rosenkranz. Thank you, mr. Chief justice this. Case is about whether to deprive scores of cities of one of the most effective tools that they have developed to deter Human Trafficking and drug crimes that have seized the ground in Americas Hotels and motels. The ordinance in questions is the least intrusive inspection scheme this court has ever encountered. It is limited to showing the police a single book containing only information that the hotels transcribed specifically for the city and that they have been turning over to the police by operation of law for 150 years. Could you first two questions. Is the information that they have been keeping for 150 years the same . Because looking at the requirements, the early information was basically somebodys name and im not even sure their address. Todays registry and requirements have information that federal law doesnt permit to be disclosed. Like drivers license. Credit card information. You cant disclose that information. The interest, however, have been pretty much the same. It was name and address in the rate that they were charged and so forth. And that is the information that the hotels have argued is the most all of the things that you say, the most effective tool for trafficking, prostitution, child molestation, none of that sounds like its the purpose of the search is administrative. It is administrative, your honor. To understand why. You have to focus first on the target. The target here not people who are accused of crimes, the target is the motels and hotels who are required to keep records to record information. Why are they required to record the information . For the deterrent purpose. And the deterrent purpose more specifically is the criminals do not like to register. They do not like to record mr. Rosenkranz, are you saying that the police will do this see the records on demand and they dont have to have any reason at all, reasonable suspicion of probable cause, nothing, because the purpose is to deter people from staying at hotels who might do bad things . Nothing like a suspicion requirement. Thats correct, your honor. Its the same rationale this court adopted in berger. That frequent unannounced spot inspections are necessary in order to achieve that deterrent purpose. That if the hotels do not record all the names, and more specifically they record most names but not the names of the guests they know are criminals theres no way to know unless you have this frequent unannounced inspection, that someone is missing. So theres a real necessity here as there was in berger and bezel. Tell me how many prosecutions there have been i use the word both criminally or civil, for the failure to register people . There have been numerous prosecutions. I cant tell you how many. The complaints in this case, which are the beginning of the joint appendix, refer to the plaintiffs having been prosecuted multiple times or fined for failure failing to keep the records. I do want to underscore this point about necessity. The problem is not that the registers are empty. The problem is that the hoe tells decline to record the names of those who they know are criminals or the motels do. That has nothing to do with the free right to search. Those people who are refusing to do it are going to refuse to do it. A Record Keeping requirement has no has no constitutional challenge. What does is the unfettered access to that record. Agreed, your honor. Those people who dont want to do it wont do it. They go somewhere else or dont commit their crimes. But if they are if they are forced to do it, which is to say the motel wont let them stay there unless they register, then they will not commit those crimes in the motels. And the only way to make sure that the motels are enforcing that obligation is to descend on them without notice, as Justice Ginsberg was saying, and frequently so that they never know when the police are going to come. Why . To make sure that they are indeed, reporting the information. Why is the real time observation key . Its because say the police show up and they have a register and they notice the room number 2 is unoccupied, according to the register, but they see someone in room number 2. They know only from real time observation that there is a violation here. If they get the register a month later, they have nothing to compare it to. You mean they can walk up and down the halls and see that nobody is a certain room . I dont know how you do that. Its not the way it works in particular. You have room number two as if its right there. What if its room 1204 . Motels, for example, are out in the open. You may be allowed to Wander Around the hotel. They probably will not see much if what they are doing is wandering back and forth looking at particular supposing motels they can see what rooms have cars in front of them. And i suppose as to room 1204 they can see usually behind the desk what keys are missing. What rooms appear not to be occupied. Thats correct, your honor. Thats why real time observation is so key. Because you cant do that a month later. And thats why we have the same necessary why . I mean what youre saying is its easier to prosecute, but it doesnt mean that you cant devote some resources and find this out. You do a surveillance, which is what police do for a lot of crimes. And you watch people going in for two hours and leaving. And you keep a record of it. You can even stop those people who are leaving to ask them. Theres a whole lot of Law Enforcement techniques that could be used to combat the situations youre talking about. But not nearly as effectively, your honor. Since when has the Fourth Amendment completely been abandoned to how effective the proof that the police can get at the moment should be . Your honor, thats not the test, but dewy refers to the fact that its not as effective. It simply doesnt work, your honor. Let me give you an example. If all the police are doing is looking for who is in what room and what keys are missing, they dont know what to look for until long after the fact. They may be looking for the wrong thing. There are many motels where they cant where they cant do it, for example, look at the keys because they are not available in easy to see. Its having the information right in front of them. And then comparing it to things they might be able to observe. Mr. Rosenkranz, why isnt this like bar lows . Its not necessary on the following rationale. Number one, most people will consent. So you go, the police go into a hotel and say wed like to see your registry, most people are going to consent. If somebody says, no, and theres a real basis for believing that the evidence is going to be altered or destroyed, you can seize it pending judicial review. Or you can get an administrative warrant ex parte and conduct a surprise examination if you want to. We talked about all of those things in bar lows about why that suggested that these warrantless searches were not necessary. What makes this different . Your honor, what makes this different is the distinction between bar lows on the one hand and berger, dewy, bizwell on the other hand. That is the movability of information. That is the transience of the information that you use to verify. In bar lows, if there is an unsafe condition, there is an unsafe condition. Its hard to see. This court said it also and distinguished this was distinguished on that ground. If you if its the sort of condition that doesnt change over time, you can get a warrant and it doesnt affect whats going to change here . The registry is the registry. And as i just said, if an unusual case you have the feeling that the hotel is complicit, you can make sure to freeze the registry. But thats not going an unusual case. And mostly the registry is going to be there. As i said, mostly people are going to consent to the extent not, you can go get a warrant. What changes is the information on the basis of which you draw that comparison. If you only compare the register if you get the register a month later, you cant compare it to facts on the ground. Its an hour later. You mean get warrant within an hour . Warrants within an hour are not that easy to get. Whats the probable cause for the warrant . If you havent seen the register, whats the probable cause . There is you have to have a policeman sit outside the hotel for days . You dont have probable cause unless you know there are people who are in the room for a short term, who havent registered. Thats exactly right. Warrants are for probable cause. Thats why berger and bizwell said, no, you dont need to get a warrant when youre doing an administrative inspection. If you prevail in this case and a member of the court sits down to write the opinion, does he or she have to use the phase reasonable expectation of privacy and say there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in our society, culture . Do we just forget that phrase . Under the berger case, the court looks at the statute, asks is this a closely regulated business, was it necessary, is it a legitimate nonLaw Enforcement purpose. And so forth. Another way to talk about reasonable expectation of privacy. Indeed it is. Talk about that in the katz case. Telephone booth case. Im not sure is that still a phrase thats necessary and required for us to address in an opinion like this . If the court adopts the berger rubric, what the court was doing is saying because this is so heavily regulated in the context of this case, because everyone knows that these registers have been reviewed by the police for 15 years, no one goes into the Hotel Business unaware that their registers will be what are we talking about . Hotel guests, right . No, your honor. The motel, the plaintiffs have taken the position that this is not about the expectation of privacy of the guests. Yes, thats what i thought its a hotel. You cant see my register. Its dear to me. Even though i have entered a business that for 115 years has revealed these registers, and for 100 of those years actually revealed the registers to the guests. Suppose that there is a statute that says they need to conduct the surprise warrantless searches because theres a serious problem with businesses turning up false payroll records s that constitutional . I would think not, your honor. At least not without more information. The difference is there isnt this long history of the government reviewing payroll records. And secondly, at least a closer question, and secondly, payroll records are not the sorts of things which you need spot inspections. They do. The government says that if you wait until they submit everything at the end of the year theyll falsify a lot of records and we really need to see whats happening right now on the ground in real time. Either a record is false or not. You dont need real time verification. You do. Because you dont want to give them the time to falsify things until the end of the year. We could have 1,000 examples like this. My answer is still the same. It doesnt have the same real time need to verify against facts that are why not . Im checking to see if people are actually registered. You dont know until you see a person working. You at a construction site, you count the number of people, and say let me see your Record Keeping for your employees today. Thats real time need. But either the ultimate record that is submitted is false or its not. You dont have the real time ability to verify whether theres you just keep a register you falsify the register the way youre saying these people would. My problem with the closely held closely regulated is i dont see one regulation thats not applicable to virtually every public accommodation entity whether its a Telephone Company or a hospital. I mean virtually all of these requirements that you list are part of the normal state regulation of entities serve people. Is it your position now once we say this is closely regulated that everything is . No, your honor. That sounds im heeding to my time, so if i may answer, quickly. First of all, the closely regulated exception is not is way more than just closely regulated. There are three other elements to it. You need to demonstrate the necessity. You need to demonstrate that its not a criminal justice purpose. And you need to demonstrate that there is an adequate substitute for a warrant. There are no further questions id like to reserve the remainder of my time. Thank you, counsel. Mr. David. Thank, mr. Chief justice. May it please the court. The court can resolve this case on a much narrower basis than it has used in looking at other administrative inspections schemes such as the one in bar lows. This case did not involve entry into the nonpublic working places of a business. It did not involve an entry into the a Residential Property t involved an entry only into the public lobby area of a motel and brief inspection of the registry of the motel. Its very significant. It could well involve an entry into a drawer. We wouldnt normally say well because you can our rules not simply because you can get into a house youre free to rummage through desks. Thats certainly right. But what this statute requires is that the registry be produced for inspection. And the way in which the officer gets to the registry is to walk into the lobby. So youre saying if a Police Officer stands outside a house and says bring me whatever it is i want from inside, he brings it out, thats not a violation of the Fourth Amendment . Because the compulsion tells the person you have to bring me whats inside. Justice sotomayor, it would be a search. Reasonableness would depend on the facts. My point here we are dealing we are dealing with businesses which have reduced expectations of privacy and not dealing with entry into the nonpublic areas of the businesses which is what marshalls was concerned with. Colonnade, berger, all those cases. The ninth circuit itself did not apply the rules that often those kinds of situations where the court has sometimes said an administrative warrant is required and other times said it is not. This is a challenge. Are there any where a substantial number of instances in which the application of this thought would be constitutional . I think there would, justice alito. If there were circumstances to justify the access to the registry. Most importantly then you dont need the statute. The statute helps because it informs the no. Under circumstances you could get a warrant. Well, you that doesnt work . I think it works, Justice Kennedy, in the sense that the statute provides encouragement for a potentially recalcitrant hotel owner to produce it because its an offense for him not to. More importantly, i think for the courts evaluation of the challenge issue, there is no record in this case about what kind of privacy expectations actually exist with respect to hotel registries. Its largely a matter of conjection, speculation, and everybodys intuition. I dont see why it was ever required more. Always required is a person to say this is my business record. And why do they have to prove more . Because what are they supposed to prove . They dont use that they dont show it to anyone else . We never required that . I think they should so there is a certain degree of confidentiality associated with. There is today when the federal law requires that you not disclose credit card information and drivers license information and these registries contain that information. You cant have it both ways. The registry is by law they are required to have the drivers license information taken from people who are paying cash. Thats right. And requires the credit card information of people who are otherwise registering. The registry doesnt have to have the credit card information unless they check in at a kiosks. What the ninth circuit did was invalidate the statute. Regardless of any fact it cant be enforced against anyone. I assume, if the problem is license plates and credit card information and all that, its not up to the hotel to complain about that invasion of privacy its up to the guests, right . I would agree with that. This case does not involve guests. Its just the hotel. Just the hotel. And there are a range of situations in which different information is maintained in different ways. I think treating the spatial challenge is problematic. If you reach the merits, what the ninth circuit did was conclude this case doesnt trigger the very strong safe wards triggered when there is an invasion of a nonpublic space of a business. They treat it as an administrative subpoena case which does have Fourth Amendment requirements associated with it, but those requirements are that the subpoena be relevant. That it be reasonable in scope. And that it be specific. And the ninth circuit conceded that all three of those requirements are satisfied. Section 4149 by itself establishes the relevance of the information for the administrative purpose that the statute serves. It is specific. And it is narrow in scope. And anybody who goes into the Hotel Industry knows that that is a inspection that they are subjected to. How do you distinguish marshall and bar low . You do, Justice Kennedy. The distinction which is the ninth circuit itself, is that involved entry into the nonpublic areas of the business. Which exposes a much wider range of information to the inspection of the authorities. Marshal covered every industry in interstate commerce and allowed osha inspections without any limitation. In that circumstance i dont understand that. Youre saying it makes a difference actually whether you keep the registry at the front desk or back office . What im saying is that the ninth circuit analyzed it precisely that way. Walk into the lobby of a hotel the court so said, in the case youre not invading any expectation of privacy. All you do is ask the hotel keeper, front desk clerk, to show you the register, which can be done simply by just moving the computer screen so that the officer can see it. And that is the most minimal intrusion on privacy interests if they exist. If i were running a hotel, i think i might prefer to have two uniformed detectives in the backroom where the guest doesnt see it. I think its quite intrusive. The ninth circuit treated it as a lesser degree of intrusion than inspection of all the private areas of the business. Thats why it applied to this line of cases. Once you apply the subpoena in live cases, you realize the statute itself serves the purposes that that line of cases is designed to serve. The only remaining claim thats really the judicial review would be very difficult to accomplish in this case because the whole purpose of this administrative scheme is, we are not we regulate prostitutes. Narcotics activity through the criminal law. The place where they are frequently conducted are low budget motels. The regulatory purpose of 4149 is to target not the criminals but the place where they conduct their activity. And doing it in a classic administrative way. This is false activity. You can rent a room. You just have to not rent it to people for cash for short terms. For no reservations. When they dont have an identification to show who they are. And you need to keep a record of what youre doing. Im trying to figure out what you think is relevant here. Let me give you a high poe its not a hotel but Hunting Lodge. And there are Record Keeping requirements about how much people shoot and when they shoot them and what they shoot and so forth. The fish and Wildlife Service or some state equivalent of that says we do not we do not want to rely on people reporting this to us. At periodic points. We just want to make spot inspections, surprise inspections all the time. Would that be all right . It seems like a much more difficult case to me in part because a public Hunting Lodge . Private Hunting Lodge. This is a private hotel. Theres a difference. Will i have to defer to the members of the court. I think the interest thats being served there is far weaker than the interest thats being served here. Which is a genuine problem reflected in the fact there are 100 statutes like this across the country. Thats how youre going to distinguish it because its more important . Because the fish and wildlife people think its awfully important to make sure that all these rules are complied with. I agree with that, justice kagan. Do i think this court and its classic Fourth Amendment analysis governs the government interest to make sure of the intrusion. I dont know enough about the Hunting Lodges you have in mind. I will say this, that a mere requirement you expose books and records youre required to keep at a regulatory matter and no one disputes that, to a Law Enforcement officer in a public area of your facility, thats this case. There is no dispute here that you can require the hotel to keep the records. That is correct. We are not challenging that. I think there would be a big dispute with regard to private Hunting Lodges whether you require them to keep the record. There may be Second Amendment concerns the court would weigh in the balance. I think that the court can resolve this case in an extremely narrow fashion. I think its even more dangerous. Look at almost how many businesses, Retail Businesses transact their Record Keeping in public areas. Talk about any shop in the country. They dont go to the back virtually, any of them, and transact their business, keep their credit card information. They put it right on the computer in front of them. Intruding on someones intruding on someones private information in a public place eliminates the Fourth Amendment. I think you asked three questions. First the substantiality of the government interest. Second the nature of the intrusion on privacy. And third on necessity. There is a strong need in the case of these hotels where prostitution and narcotics activity flourish because criminals do not want to identify themselves when they check in to have regular unannounced inspections to give the hotels the incentive to comply with the registration law. Thank you, counsel. Thank you. Mr. Goldstein. Mr. Chief justice, may it please the court. We ask the court to hold that the city does not need to go to the judge in advance and get a warrant but instead that it merely needs to issue us a onepage subpoena. We can object to that subpoena but its going to be enforced unless the city isnt actually implementing a legitimate administrative scheme because its searching to harass us or investigate crimes. Is it your position that there is no instance in which this statute and the implementation of it would be constitutional . It is because the hypothesis that you would use it for exigent circumstances or when you waive the right to privacy dont actually involve the enforcement of the statute. Whats necessary here, the value in the Fourth Amendment, is the requirement that there be a regularized scheme. Its going to be a regularized scheme that either appears in the administrative rule itself. That doesnt exists here. Theres no limit on when they can search. How often they can search. Or the reason they can search. If there isnt that, then you put a court into the process. We make preenforcement judicial review available. The reason is the Fourth Amendment protects our sense of tranquility. The hotel owners and individuals and other context, businesses and other context need to know these officers arent going to at their whim conduct these searches. Suppose a city or state wanted to establish an administrative inspection regime along the lines of bar lows. What would it have to include in your judgment . Could the warrant be issued by an Administrative Law judge as opposed to a superior court judge . Yes. Would it require probable cause . No. Could they could it be done without prior notice . Yes. Could you have different standards for different types of hotels . Inspections for all hotels you, but much more frequent inspections for hotels that rent by the hour, hotels that have a large number of guests who pay in cash, and so forth. Yes. All those things could be done. If thats ok, its not clear to me what that would add to the ordinance before us . That was, and Justice Kennedy asked how barlows plays out in this context. Mr. Dreeben is half right in his answer. He is absolutely right the court said if youre not physically inspecting the premises, then you dont have to ahead of time get warrant. Justice scalia, its not a problem cause criminal warrant. All the court is required in this line of cases is that the government show its part of an administrative scheme. The second part is whats missing. The key case mentioned in passing it hasnt gotten enough attention, its called donovan vs. Lone steer. It was decided by justice rehnquist, unanimously opinion and it considers a circumstance similar to this. That is under the fair labor standards act, the government can do what it does here. It demands employment records. The reason this court said that that comports with the Fourth Amendment, there is a balance. That is that the government has to issue a subpoena to which the employer can object. And that accomplishes two things. The first is, without burdening the government, it interjects the possibility of judicial revue. That way you know the enforcement each of the objections, mr. Rosenkranz, in answer to my question, there is no notion of probable cause, reasonable cause. The hotel owner is required to keep these records. Thats not disputed t they are required to keep them. The police dont have to have any reason. What would be shown by that hearing . Your honor, this courts consistent line of precedence, there are six case that is have dealt with the subpoena rule have said the following. That is the concern when you have a scheme like this one that doesnt tell the officer how often or when to search, is that the officer will do two things forbidden by the Fourth Amendment. One is theyll do it in a harassing way, and second theyll use it for crime control. The real concern here, the city is validly saying they want to look at the record for example find prostitutes or the johns who are involved in renting the rooms. So thats why what you do is you let the police issue the subpoena. They dont go to the judge ahead of time. But the prospect there can be an objection, you can go to a judge, is what protects the sense of tranquility of the Business Owner. Whats the purpose you agree its constitutional to require the register . Absolutely. Why is the state interested in requiring the register if it cant look at it with little notice . Whats the point . Justice ken dirks the fact that its only interested in Law Enforcement i think is a point in our favor. But just recognize that what mr. Rosenkranz is describing is the scenario that gave rise to your question about 1204 is inaccurate. If i play out a hypothetical his point is follows. An officer shows up at a hotel and sees someone sees a light on. What he wants to do then is look and right then determine, look there is a registration card for room 2. I dont know what that proves because he doesnt know anything inappropriate is going on in room two, it doesnt matter. What the officer does is makes a record. There was someone in room two on june 1 at 12 00 a. M. And comes back two days later and serves the subpoena. There is no reason in the world that doesnt give any advance notice to the motel owner. If he has a particular concern he can sequester the records. So they can have them held separately. If theres going to be an objection, which is rare theres no reason his concern is about contemporaneous observation. Thats not the issue in the case. He can sit outside and look outside the room. The issue in the case is do you have to go in and have no opportunity for a judge to be involved before you search the record . Seeing the light on doesnt prove anything unless you know that the hotel has not registered the person who is in the room. Justice scalia, remember, our objection is not to them being able to either require the register or inspect the register. Neither one of those is at issue. The question is, can they do that without giving us any opportunity to say to a judge whats actually going on in here is Law Enforcement or harassment, they have come in five times during the day. And that system, which is they issue the subpoena, they dont go to the judge ahead of time. They give me a subpoena, right. They say, we want the records. And if there is an objection the officer has made the observation about room 2. And they can go ahead, telephone warrants are easy. There is no reason the subpoena objection cant be heard by a judge late on. Hes observed and made a note about whats going on in the hotel. They could fill in while hes running off getting a subpoena. The subpoena who is in that room . Hes not running off anywhere. The subpoena is simply handed at the desk. This is an administrative onepage piece of paper. Let me say i dont understand. He has it in his pocket . All youre asking for from this litigation the one who wants to inspect it just pulls out a piece of paper and hands it to him and makes it ok . Theres two parts. Thats how the subpoena works the reason this court has the has required at the bear minimum, accepting the very limited berger context, when you hand the subpoena, the person who receives the subpoena says this is an unusual case, im going to go to the trouble of objecting. I think can i tell a judge and prove to the judge this is Law Enforcement in disguise. I could say the same thing without the subpoena. Yes. Our critical point is this guarantees him the right to say that to a judge. Allows him the opportunity while the policeman is getting the subpoena to fill in the name of the person in what is otherwise a blank space. Mr. Chief justice, hes not going to get a subpoena. Subpoenas dont work that way. I thought you said if he serves the subpoena, the other person can demand judicial review. Thats correct. The Police Officer has to go somewhere to get the judicial review with whoever the hotel owner sends. It might not work that way. That is the hotel owner may have to file a motion to quash. Its not particularly important. Mr. Chief justice, heres the problem with that argument. It is important. Because we are trying to figure out how this works. The subpoena, the hotel owner says i object. What happens . How long does it take . It doesnt take any amount of time which is why the court has consistently required it. That is he says, im not going to give you the records. Im going to file a motion to quash. If the police want to enforce it right away, they can go to an administrative judge. They go somewhere. Yes. During that time, doesnt the hotel clerk take his pen and say, i didnt register this guy in room 2, im going to get in trouble, and he fills in no, for the reason given by justice kagan. You can sequester the records. The question is searching the records. We are talking about a set of cards. This is a real concern. It is a concern made up the by the citys lawyers in this court when at trial they did not produce any evidence of this. It would be equally applicable in every kind of required record, same is true in a construction site if you object and say im going to take these records and keep them in the police car trunk until we resolve this . Yes, you can do that. There is authority . Sure. Its very similar to what this court has said on the Fourth Amendment context. Remember when the police show up at someones house and they are concerned about the destruction of evidence inside, what they do is simply thats much more intrusive than Justice Kennedy, dont think the government can have it both ways. These are our private records. They want to do something incredible unusual that the Fourth Amendment forbids. They want a scheme that doesnt say when theyll search, how often they are records required by law to be kept. And you are not objecting to that at all. Justice scalia, thats right. The other side makes a good point. And that is these are Business Records that receive reduced Fourth Amendment protections. We understand that. So did the Unanimous Court in loan lone steer. What it said thats the reason we dont have a probable cause requirement here. Thats why we require the minimum amount of judicial process which is the prospect that if the owner has a good objection, they can go to a judge. Thats why we dont have the Fourth Amendments full protections. They can be sequester by the Police Officer, even asked by the chief justice, do you have to have some kind of onsite approval. If the hotel owner says you cant have these records, the police can say, give me the books and take them away. Yes. Not inspect them. Hold them aside. This is a real problem, which there is no evidence of, if they want to hold them aside, then they can be just sequestered. Nobody looks at them. That is the seizure. Absolutely. Why is that justified in looking at the information not . This court has held that in the identical circumstance, this arises in the Fourth Amendment context. When the government is concerned about the destruction of evidence before it can acquire a warrant, it can sequester the property. It can seize control of the property without searching it. Thats just if it has probable cause. Your honor, it has the relevant level of cause thats required in the particular context. I thought you said in response to my earlier questions that the city could have a regime under which an Administrative Law judge issues a warrant, not a subpoena, for a periodic inspection. So the officer would have the warrant, would go to the hotel. Heres the warrant. This is your periodic inspection. There would be no prejudicial review. There would be a challenge later. No, your honor. What this court has said in cases, is when you get the preenforcement judicial review, that is the judicial involvement required. We would be perfectly happy with that. The difference between your hypothetical and this one is that a judge is involved and shows that this isnt for Law Enforcement, its the orderly operation of administrative scheme. Whereas what the city wants is for a beat cop to go in at any time as often as he wants for any purpose. The complexity in the answers and frankly surprise i have at some of your answers may indicate that this is not a basis for a spatial not a case for a spatial attack. We have to go back and decide these issues on a case by case basis. Justice kennedy, ail give you my response to that. That is the court in all of the colonnade lineup cases has dealt with things on a categorical basis. Never on a case buy case basis because it looked at the structure of the scheme. This is a scheme where they are not going to have any reason they dont need justification to come in. We know they can seize. Its a particular record. They can do it any time. That kind of scheme what the court has consistently insisted on his that there be this minimum of a subpoena process. Im sorry. I thought the stronger answer would be we have always looked at a lack of procedural protection under a challenge. Any time that the challenge is to the lack of process, we have looked at it, implied, whatever, it doesnt need to be. Let me add one other point thats underappreciated in the case. Not only does our complaint assert an as applied challenge there was a trial on that, and the record on the as applied challenge in the record in this case, we pursued our spatial challenge only after before the second trial it stipulated they only had spatial defenses of the statute. Thats the reason we had this oddity we are here on the facial challenge. The evidence had a been collected. There is nothing to be gained by having a second trial. You constantly said that one of the objections that the hotel owner can make is that you want these records for enforcement of the criminal law. Right . You say thats bad. Yes. But the whole purpose of this thing is to enable the criminal law to be enforced isnt it . There are two different points being made here. One is, you are quite right. They have an administrative scheme. The point of the administrative scheme is to judge for criminal violations. Imagine on tuesday, a Police Officer comes in and says, look, i think theres a prostitute in room 3. What i am going to do im going to invoke this 4149 and see if that persons name matches up as a prostitute. Thats criminal Law Enforcement. It requires probable cause. The fact that they have an underlying administrative scheme doesnt mean they can investigate crimes through using this evidence. The court has said time and time again in its administrative decisions that its really important that we involve the courts because those in this case has presented more starkly than any other, that you misuse the administrative process i think there may be an exception to that principle where the whole purpose of that scheme is to enable the detection of criminal activity. And then the objection would be the whole scheme is bad. You cannot require them to keep books. Because its whole purpose is to detect criminal activity. Thats not what youre arguing. They can deep the books in order to detect criminal activity, but if they request the book in order to detect criminal activity, its bad. It doesnt make sense at all. Because its not the argument. And that is what is the argument . Their defense of the statute is not that the records are used to detect crime. They are used to deter crime. They dont look at the records to find criminals. All they do is look at the records to make sure we are keeping records. My point is that one day a Police Officer under this it can happen regularly. If an officer will come in and say im not concerned about whether you filled out the form. I think there might be a prostitute in room 3 and use it for criminal law. Mr. Goldstein, i thought an equally important purpose behind this law is, as you said earlier, prevent harassment. I dont like this hotel owner. I want to drive this hotel out of business. Im going to be showing up in his lobby every day. Thats part of whats going on here, right . In fact the principal thing this courts precedence has pointed to look whats missing in this ordinance. Every time they say we identify specifically the records. The question isnt what the records are. Its the loss of sense of tranquility provided by the Fourth Amendment. We dont know how frequently and harassing purpose and what reasons at all if Police Officer will come in over and over again. Have we used that phrase before . Which one . Tranquility . I dont think that word is. Talk about privacy and all that. Im not sure that the Fourth Amendment should be expanded to protect the sense of tranquility. The problem with tranquil hotel owners. I associate with owning a hotel. It is the sense of certainty that the Fourth Amendment provides that what you do know is that there are going to be limits on when the police come in and say show us your papers. Thats what we are talking about. I think theres some they do it. In hotels they have these notices posted all over about where the first emergency exit is and all that. Could police come in and check to make sure the hotel has those posted . Yes. Without any warrant . Because they are in public spaces. Is the back of a hotel room door, is that a private place . Take for example in the back of the restaurant, in the back of the kitchen im talking about every hotel room. Inside the room . They say, look, this is a very important thing to make sure people dont die in a big fire. We want to make sure you have them. Let me look at room 12. Great example for us. Thats a fire inspection regime. What has to happen is there has to be a subpoena ahead of time. At the very least this court the lowest level standard the court has ever applied is in a case called dewy. What dewy said is at the very least if youre not going to involve a court, you have to have a set of rules when these searches are going to be conducted and how often. I didnt understand your answer about harassment. Maybe it is in the record. Or maybe its because this wasnt as applied. The police, even if this ordinance were invalidated, the police could show up whenever they wanted, couldnt they, and ask for the owner or person at the desk voluntarily to disclose the register . They could be in the lobby as much as they want. Exactly how does this aid in harassment of hotels . Because of the fact that they are requiring us to produce private records. It was always the case in cases like barlows, where the police couldnt show up and inspection the premises, they could harass. The court said if youre going everyone agrees this is a Fourth Amendment search. Its a public space. I dont know whether its dispositive, but its of some relevance. They walk in. Two scenarios, one with the ordinance, one without. Without, they walk in and said would you in the kindness of your heart look at the register . And the owner says no. I dont want to. And they come back the next day and do the same thing. Thats the first scenario. Second is, they come in and say let us see the register. You show them the register. And what . Its a harassment because they sit there for a while and the guests coming in see the police in the lobby . I dont understand its the fact that day after day after day we have to give them our private information. And it really will involve a problem, it can harass and put us out of business. Imagine the following scenario. We are put in this position because they come up with this hypothetical about when it could be valid. The officers see someone come into the motel. Each time they see someone come into the motel they come in and say we are the police. Let us see the records. It can interfere if you had case specific example, that might be one thing. It would help if you could tell me what goes on in this precompliance judicial review. The hotel owner says, sorry. You cant look at the registry. I want judicial review. What is the nature of that review . This court has considered that question in the fair labor standards act. Banking context and tax context. California bankers, donovan and lone steer. What it has said is the Administrative Agent with the Police Officer, whoever enforces the law, dont have to go to a judge, is a onepage subpoena. Then there is an objection by the Business Owner in any of these context. In banking, these are records that the government requires you to produce. And then what happens is that the what generally will be the rule, its up to the city. The city will put the onus on us to go to a judge. The fact the onus is on us to go to a judge and the objections are limited. Which is to say we only get to object this harassment. Rule is they almost over give the records. It is the prospect we can go to a judge that tells the beat cop he needs to behave. Those are the only objections that yes. Harassment and using this for Law Enforcement. Yes. Thats in courts precedence. Thats the rule how many of these courts precedents involve a business that has been treated like a public utility . There are requirements for hotels how big the room has to be. How many people you can put in a room. Even in many locations how much you can charge for the room. The hotel owner is not like the private business. He is a regulated provider of Public Services that has traditionally been regulated closely over the years. The first question you asked is how many times you have been asked that question, the answer is none. The second answer to your question is, in the relevant sense, which is to say how much of this property is protected and private, is that overwhelmingly hotels have constitutional protections. Remember, 95 of this hotel is going to be the guest rooms. And unlike in cases like remember they search the open junkyard. Unlike cases like bizwell where you inspect the open storage or go behind the scenes, here the police cant do it. The Fourth Amendment, everybody agrees, protects privacy at the hotel. And so there is a much greater expectation of privacy on our part. The question that Justice Scalia is asking, is there a reason to think that hotels are a more heavily regulated industry than all the other industries that we can think of . No. Just think about it. California bankers and miller are cases involving banking. Banking is incredibly heavily regulated. You have to have a charter. The government requires all types of records. Remember, Justice Scalia, those are the Bank Customers records. They are about the Bank Customers transactions. What the court said in both those cases, in rare exceptions like the 10,000 requirement. Title 1 is unconstitutional because it requires a subpoena. There is a prospect of getting a judge involved if the bank secrecy requirement is too onerous. Inn keepers have been regulated for centuries. They have duties. To the public. Im just puzzled by this. You concede the record has to be kept. But there are very few reasons for keeping those records other than Law Enforcement. That we disagree with Justice Kennedy. We have kept these records and innkeepers have kept these records for time immemorial. We use these records for different purposes. Every record of our business transaction. We use them to keep in touch with our customers. Its quite proprietary information. Motel 6 does this . I never received anything from them. My goodness. You may not be in their frequent guests. Nobody doubts. Remember, this is an ordinance that applies to the four seasons, and ritz carlton and everything else. They carve out a subsefment while we are attentive to the point we are not asserting the guests are not asserting Fourth Amendment rights here lets not lose sight of the fact that these records can show very, very personal information. Not just the drivers license information, but whether you stayed at a hotel during a religious or political convention. Complaining about the privacy interest of the guests. Justice scalia, heres the point. They agree this is a Fourth Amendment search, point one. Then, what you are doing you have to make an honest assessment whether this information really does further the Fourth Amendment value of privacy. It does. Because this has private stuff in it. Theres just no real dispute about that. Im sympathetic to the fact that inn keepers have been regulated for a long time. In 99. 4 of the jurisdictions in this country, this is not the rule. There are hundreds, but there are 18,000 other jurisdictions in which this is not the rule and apparently has never been the rule. And the nature of that regulation isnt one that impinges on our sense of privacy. We have to take guests, what does that tell us about whether our records are private . Certainly we can identify a huge array of other businesses that are regulated. The one data point i want to make. In 2002, the department of justice did a study. The subpoena first in order to get the records. There are a handful of them. This exception says you never have to get a judge involved. Does that include are you including a little hamlet, los angeles, new york . I do not know the answer to the particular city, but there are a lot of the cities that do not have this rule. They can do that by keeping their own records successfully. You have conceded that they can require the information as a matter of law. Mr. Goldstein well, thats because your precedents say they can, your honor. And my point is this, because your precedents say Justice Scalia well, that means its true. [laughter] mr. Goldstein well and hence, my answer yes. But my point is this because they can do it here, Justice Kennedy, they can do it everywhere. The government can require any