well, good evening, everyone, i'm erin burnett, and "outfront" tonight, show me your papers. show them to me. four simple words, that mean a lot tonight in arizona and around the world. depending on how you look at it or whose spin you believe, the supreme court's ruling today on the controversial arizona immigration law gave both sides reason to declare victory. the president came out and said he's "pleased with the ruling" because after all, the justices said the federal government not individual states has the sole power to enforce laws against illegal immigration. the court struck down three provisions of arizona's law. arresting someone without a warrant requiring people to carry i.d., and criminalizing the work of undocumented workers. but here's the rub, the justices upheld something crucial. requiring police to determine immigration status during a lawful stop. in other words, well, show me your papers. and if you're saying that sort of contradicts not carrying an i.d., i'm with you on that. >> the heart of senate bill 1070 has been proven to be constitutional. arizona and every other state's inherent authority to protect and defend its people has been upheld. >> all right. if there's reasonable suspicious to stop someone, say for traffic violation or for something else, you can now legally still ask that person to prove their immigration status. now, you may say the definition for reasonable suspicion sounds a little bit vague, and it is. and arizona is not the only state that would allow police to ask for proof of status when making things like traffic stops. alabama, georgia, south carolina, and utah have put similar laws in place. now, there are a lot of questions tonight. over why the justices chose to uphold the show me your papers provision. and whether that provision could lead to racial profiling. >> if you're in arizona, and you speak with a little bit of an accent or your skin color's brown, you better have your papers with you. >> bottom line, the supreme court did not end the debate today over immigration laws. they started a new one. "outfront" tonight, a big pro t proponent of the law, joe arpaio. good to see you, sir, i appreciate you taking your time. supreme court striking down three of the four provisions of the arizona law, but keeping the crucial, show me your papers provision. do you see this as a victory or a setback? >> well, you know, we've been doing this anyway the last four years. i do support the 1070, but we've been asking people doing our operations on human smuggling, crime suppression, and raiding workplaces. my office has done over 51,000 on the streets, in the jails. so this is nothing that we have not been doing. but it's good to send a message that we are doing the right thing. i'm a little concerned at the allegations of racial profiling. the justice department last month, very convenient time, has taken me to court, accusing me after 3 1/2 years of racial profiling, and now, i believe, that the administration is even talking about racial profiling because now cops have the authority to ask when they come across illegals during the course of their duties and making arrest. it's convoluted -- >> let's get straight to the racial profiling. because that seems to be the heart of where this is heading now. the justice department -- and the suit. what the doj has said is that latino drivers are between four and nine times more likely to be pulled over by your officers. but only about 30% of the population of maricopa county is latino. so when looked at that way, it seems clear there's racial profiling going on. >> well, that's their opinion. now we're going to be in court, and we'll be able to put the true facts out on the table. that is their opinion. which, by the way, last month they had their big press conference saying they're taking me to court which is very convenient. we're in an election year, they knew the 1070 was coming out, the president announced his new program last week on the kids. so what is this? all politics? the timing is very -- very interesting when you talk about illegal immigration. >> well, what do you say the numbers are? >> on what? >> in terms of racial profiling. or how you're saying the numbers do not support racial profiling. >> no, it does not. we arrest anybody who violates the law. we don't care where they're from. it so happens we're close to the border and a lot of people come from mexico and they're here illegally. that's not my problem. so we're just enforcing all the laws and we're going to continue to do it regardless of the new policy that i hear over the air waves, which i predicted early this morning that they're not going to pick up those that we arrest, law enforcement arrests unless they're serious criminals. so i guess there's another issue of amnesty right now without going to congress and getting the laws changed. >> do you think -- and i know this is a dicey question, but it's an important one on this racial profiling issue -- is it possible from what you've seen that more criminal activity in your county comes from latinos? in other words they're only 30% of the population, but they do commit a higher number of crimes. hence you would be able to defend your point of view without racial profiling. >> i'll tell you that 1,000 people in my jails -- they don't like, they demonstrated against me on saturday night. but about 18% were in jail for other crimes, murder's on the way down, down to about 14% now. so evidently something's working and crime has gone down 29% in maricopa county. i'm not blaming it all on illegal aliens, but you can see that the number of people in our jails are here illegally. >> one final question. the show me your papers provision which was upheld today based on police stopping people due to "reasonable suspicion," what is reasonable suspicion? is it just traffic stops? how else do you define it? >> no, the traffic stop is not reasonable suspicion. a stop that's made on a crime or a traffic violation of the law. and then you determine if the person here with suspicion is here illegally and then you talk to i.c.e. about that problem and i.c.e., i presume will pick them up. and now i predict they're not going to pick them up. what do we do? we dump them on the streets even though they're here illegally? that's something i will face. i have a couple ideas and i'll face that issue when it comes up. >> what are you going to do? as?t is one of y ide n't ow ve teenghis we've worked very closely with i.c.e. they accept all our detainments and on illegal immigration, but they just cut off all ties with this 287-g program, cut off all ties with local and state authorities so they're picking on arizona again. and that's arrogance and i don't think it's right. >> and no sense of telling us a little bit the direction you're going to go now that you have to be creative and improvise? >> i'm telling you the direction i'm going at is the same direction i've been going at. i'm following that route. and i'm not going to violate any constitutional rights. i have dedicated deputies who know what they're doing. when i know the immigration put my people, 200, through their training, five weeks of intensive training, nobody else can make that statement. yet they're going at me saying we're racial profiling. >> thank you very much, sheriff arpaio, we appreciate you taking the time tonight. and jeffrey toobin was in for the ruling and john avalon also with us. very passionate and intense rebuttal from sheriff arpaio. what's going to be the legal challenge here? and actually interesting that he's saying tonight that he's going to be going ahead with some other methods. >> well, the challenge here is justice kennedy's opinion said, okay, you can go forward with show us your papers. but be aware that we are going to be monitoring what you're doing to see if there is any sort of illegal discrimination involved. kennedy was very aware this was a potentially problematic law. and he says, look, we're approving it on paper but we want to see how it's applied in the real world. >> i'll read between the lines and say they're waiting to get this challenged. one guy in maricopa county says, i got pulled aside, asked for my papers so i'm going to be the test case of racial profiling to go to the supreme court. >> you know, it's a long way from the supreme court. they would have to go to the district court and the court of appeals first. it's not so much one guy. the question is, when you asked a question, what is reasonable suspicion that someone is an illegal immigrant. i don't know, frankly. i don't know how you define that in a way that is legally permissible or even meaningful to police officers. i have a lot of sympathy for the officers who have to actually apply these standards in the real world. i think seeing what procedures are in place to define reasonable suspicion in a way that's legitimate and not discriminatory. that's going to be the real challenge for law enforcement in arizona. >> and then outside of the legal, there's the political. so it is politically popular. the president, obviously, made the statement today this decision makes unmistake bli clear, congress must act. and romney says today's decision underscores the need for a president who will lead on the critical issue. both of them passing the buck to congress. >> yeah, and it is an extraordinary moment to this extent. look, president obama and harry reid bear some responsibility for not advances parts of immigration reform when democrats had unified control of congress. but of course, mitt romney calling for bipartisan immigration reform. well, that's precisely what he opposed in 2007 when the mccain/kennedy bill was up, backed by president bush, mitt romney running for president, he opposed that bill calling it amnesty. it's a tough position for both of them, frankly. you've got to square your action with the past statements and principles, as well. >> a little vague on both. thanks very much to both of you. and still "outfront," days after jerry sandusky's conviction, a former espn reporter "outfront" with a secret she's kept for decades. you have a brand new e-mail address and you probably don't even know it, but we do. and george zimmerman wants out of jail and he has a plan to do it. i didn't know how i was gonna to do it, but i knew i was gonna get that opportunity one day, and that's what happened with university of phoenix. nothing can stop me now. i feel like the sky's the limit with what i can do and what i can accomplish. my name is naphtali bryant and i am a phoenix. visit phoenix.edu to find the program that's right for you. enroll now. ps t sh yours with us. with real advice for real goals. ps t sh yours a u.s bank wealth mant me advir lp ys. every step of the way. from big steps, to l since 1863 we've helped guide ouie soy cake t tops help gro eserveanpass along there since 1863 we've helped guide ouie wealth. so there footsteps can help the nexteneration re own path. usbank yll. woman: what do you mean, honers insurance doesn't cover floods? [ heart rate increases ] man: a few inches of water caused all this? [ heart rate increases ] woman #2: but i don't even live ar the water. what you don't know about ood - including the fact that a preferred risk policy starts as low as $129 a year. for an agent, call the number that appears on your screen. our second story outfront, jerry sandusky tonight in a prison cell still insistg he's not guilty. he was, of course, convicted of 45 counts of sexual abuse late friday night. but now his case is inspiring others to come forward with thories. dana jacobson was just 6 years old when her male babysitter sexually abused her. she was achor at espn and she's "outfront" tonight. you chose to tell it, obv,iously in th aftermath of the jerry sandusky story. did that case really inspire you, motivate you to saknow wha? i'm not going to keep this >>cret anymore? i'd ght it before, but not telling it publicly. and tol people bube t puicly. and when this happened in november, i just didn't have that opportunity. so when i was watching on friday night and evenust heari about it as the trial was going on, i kept thinking i need -- this is my time. i need to share my story and i ard one interview where somebody said it was time to find his voice, one of the victims.i fe the exact same way. it was time tondfi my voice and stop bng silent about t. >> i wanted to play one of the victims -- one of the victims spoke out on nbc about the guilt till feels. >> if i would have said something, that would've stopped frund om beiher kids. >> that's a big burden to carry. >> i know it's not my fault, but i can't help but feel that way. >> and is that a feeling you -- >> i was watching that, and that was exactly how -- you feelh if you'dai sometnger. d vehoug this every time.i ca to terms with this in my 20s. and we're pasmy now i'm in my 30s now. thing, if i'd said something at the time would somebody not have been rt? he do this to somebody else?'s expect that as a child or somebody coming to terms with it, that was certainly how i fe >> one oeimagesof jerry sandusky that stood out the most to me wasthe one whe w pron garb, and the moment after he was formally convicted saying what is this person? who is this person? how does a person do this? what went through your mind as you're seeing those moments? -- of jerrysandusky. ihink more than anything, he's sick. anybody who does this, obvisly, is sick. i wish in some ways maybe that i had been able to confront my accuser by doing something legally, which i can't, the statute of limitations has expired in my case. i can't imagine what twould be like and the courage that would take. but i think if i'd had that opportunity, that maybe i would have fifrently. maybe e would be even more closure for me and knowing that i was able to legally do something put somebody hi bars. so looking at him, i think i was wishing that more victims had that opportunity to really take action. and that's the problem, they don't. >> right. and yrse was when 6, your abuser was ten years older. babysitter. >> he was a teenagerhigh school and i was a kid in elementary school. and by the time i came to terms with it, the statute of limitations is 21 when i was in michigand to think that somebod doesn't getni because it took y the time it should to be able to ce t terms with it. doesn't make sense. >> do you think extending the statute of limitations iswo ing? i' yught a lot about the balance. >> you still have to pve the case. you could me up th a fal accusation, you still have to e thprovcase. it seems cra to me that somebody can get away with a crime like thi witmolesting a child because 15 years went by instead of 10. because i was 24 when i came to terms with it and i was in my 30s before i wanted to talk about it more. so it's okay what he did. don't worry about it. that's not okay. i'd rather take the chance that you have to prove your case and that somebody, i would hope, wouldn't be wrongly convicted, but i'd rather take that chance. >> well, thank you so much, dana, appreciate it. and ahead "outfront," an article that's sent shock waves across the internet. the author who started it all by saying women can't have it all. that adds up. that's "outfront" tonight. did you know you have a new e-mail address tonight? facebook changed it for you without asking. ur in a day. or take aleve, which can relieve pain all day with just two pills. good eye. which can relieve pain all day with just two pills. so what i'm saying is, people like options. when you take geico, you can call them anytime you feel like saving money. it don't matter, day or night. use your computer, your smartphone, your tablet, whatever. the point is, you have options. oh, how convenient. hey. crab cakes, what are you looking at? geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. yoyou u wawalklk i intna coconvnvenentitiononalal ms ststorore,e, i it't's s rert ababouout t yoyou.u. ththeyey s sayay, , "w"weleu wawantnteded a a f firirm m bebn lilie e onon o onene o of . wewe p prorovividede t thet inindidivividudualalizizatat yoyourur b bodody y neneede. wowow,w, t thahat t fefeeley gogoodod!! ononcece y youou e expxpere, ththerere'e's s nono g goio. huhurrrry y inin n nowow fr lolowewestst p pririceces s of. sasaveve $ $30300 0 toto $n seselelectcteded s sleleepep n . sasalele e endnds s jujul. ononlyly a at t ththe e slsleeer ststorore,e, w wheherere n and we're back. with tonight's number. >> you've got mail. >> remember that? remember that? yeah, even you are way too young to remember that, you remember that. the famous aol sound. tonight you have a new e-mail address and there's probably mail in it because facebook has given all users a facebook e-mail. i don't have a facebook account, but that's the format. the 900 million people with facebook accounts all have facebook.com e-mail addresses tonight. if you go and check your contact information, you're now going to see your e-mail address as facebook.com. now the company announced back in the middle of april they were going to update people's addresses over the next few weeks, so those few weeks have passed and here we are. they say, look, you're not required to keep or use your facebook e-mail address, you can go in and change your setting to an e-mail address you prefer, maybe the one you had this in there before. you're going to say why is facebook doing this? well, for starters, because facebook hasn't gotten traction on e-mail over the past two years. to forcing it to be an opt out, they're thinking more people will try it out, stay longer on the site, more people will use it and they can make more money. because after all, facebook is not a public utility even though many users may feel that way. it's a company that has to make money. and the stock is down nearly 16% from its ipo price of $38. look, we all know facebook isn't making money from ads the way it hoped to, so it's throwing a lot of spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. over the weekend, it tested a function called find friends nearby, which is supposed to tell you when other people, your friends, are close to you. the company said it was an unofficial release and pulled it after 24 hours. now, before you say facebook is messing up too much, throwing too much spaghetti that is dribbling off the wall, consider this, google is testing everything from driverless cars to special glasses, to wind, to undersea cables. i mean, you can say, wait a minute, supposed to be an internet company. a lot of those ideas have failed or will fail. but google gets brilliant people to work for it because of its mission to save the world. and its stock has been on fire. even with all that spaghetti throwing. and that's the number tonight. $560.70, which is where google shares closed today, google ipo'ed at $85 a share. maybe they'll throw enough spaghetti at the wall to get into google stock price territory. let us know your view. go to our facebook page. and still "outfront," will george zimmerman make bail? he's got a plan, we have it. and then a plague of violence in chicago and roland martin is taking the president of the united states to task over it. [ groans ] [ marge ] psst. constipated? phillips' caplets use magnesium, an ingredient that works more naturally with your colon than stimulant laxatives, for effective relief of constipation without cramps. thanks. good morning, students. today we're gonna continue... the teacher that comes to mind for me is my high school math teacher, dr. gilmore. i mean he could teach. he was there for us, even if we needed him in college. you could call him, you had his phone number. he was just focused on making sure we were gonna be successful. he would never give up on any of us. i have to know the weather patterns. i upgraded to the new sprint di