Jurisdiction spirit is that include, are you comparing the little hamlet in indiana with los angeles or new york . I dont know the answer to the 21 question of the particular city. They can do that by keeping their own record. You have conceded they can require the information as a matter of law. Thats my point is this. My point is because they can do it here, they can do it anywhere pair the government can require any business to keep track of all of its transactions and customers and if the government can then just say, all right give us that information, they reduced the Fourth Amendment appeared to amendment. The amount of government regulation here is massive. The reason the general is here on behalf of the United States is that there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of regulatory schemes the federal government ministers where it is now required to use a subpoena. A subpoena is worthless when what is sought is something that could be easily destroyed hidden, or falsified. Trying to get complicated records that can i get is lee altered during the time the subpoena is issued and the time it is enforced. Nobody issues a subpoena for the murder weapon that you suspect is in somebody passes house. These weapons are more like the murder weapon. You seem to concede when you say the police concedes them. The subpoena is worthless then. The record is how many hours are worked with how many hours of pay. I just do not understand the nature of recordkeeping. This is a bear constitutional minimum to keep the enforcement officer in line and let them know the enforcement officer is in line. They do not want to put undue burdens on the subpoena. You think payrolls in general are no more complicated than the hotel that runs by the hour question mark ice it is relevant, the question is, the records is 50, the accurate the actual record would say 50 and i just want to fill in 35, yes. The court did not even think that was a remotely plausible argument in the line of cases i am describing. , counsel. Four minutes. Thank you p let me start with the facial point and an circle back to the merits. Is it here, mr. Goldstein is describing the rule come the only objections are whether this is for a legitimate purpose. If that is a concern, that is a challenge where if a hotel has come of to them five times a day and they come in and say, this is really harassed and the searches are in a brick, if it is the purpose of the officer doing criminal investigation rather than actually caring about whether my records are complete, that is a challenge. The plaintiffs have not even try to demonstrate that this ordinance is unconstitutional in every circumstance. We developed numerous scenarios and mr. Goldstein mentioned only one of them. For example, where the hotel is required to upload records to the Police Department every day it may not even be a search, but it is less intrusive. I cannot understand those examples. The police could act without this in some of those examples. Not that one. In some of them, the event has the purpose of requiring someone to do something they were not otherwise have submit to. The women i just gave as an example, the scenario of uploading the documents, it is less intrusive. The problem here is that the plaintiffs have tried to invalidate every half will application of the ordinance but they have not done the in truth this net intrusiveness balance one needs to do for each of them. Let me circle to the merits. I am still very confused about this. There is really a potential exception to a warrant. Even a Fourth Amendment warrant of going into someones home. There is someone to come the others i. If there is a felon into the place. But that does not eliminate the need for a warrant. It is not, tell us later. Police cannot keep going in and fish around for an excuse. It is a process issue. You are entitled to a warrant, a subpoena. That is let they are challenging. They are not challenging the other reasons why the police could go in legitimately, and us action an exception to the Fourth Amendment. Theyre asking whether this kind of search, generally without all of those other circumstances or other Fourth Amendment objections is constitutional. Understood. Lets not talk about exceptions. Lets talk about another. The open like they did for a hundred years, and is match away when the lease come to a request that is a different issue. It is in the public. For that reason, they would have no expectation of privacy in the Fourth Amendment calculus would be totally different. Then it is not a search at all. Know, if they snatch it away there is work. No expectation of privacy, we would not say it is a search at all the police were taken away. Exactly. We would win the Fourth Amendment case there that is being invalidated by deciding this. Light on you take an extra minute or so. Thank you. Let me emphasize this is a narrow rule we are talking about. We are talking about a rule unlikely to be repeated in so many of the other circumstances discussed today. It is about an inspection of only a single vote of information the government requires a host to me and and that mr. Goldstein has admitted the government can require hotels to maintain. It is in a context especially prone to criminality, that people are using these precisely to commit crimes, where the gaps are quite detectable in real and not detectable otherwise. In industry weather has been hundreds of years of regulation, including a history of warrantless searches even broader at the time of the founding third hotels were being searched without warrants at the time of the founding. A history of 100 years of Police Inspections in los angeles itself and even 100 years of these things being open to the public. The court has no further questions. Thank you, counsel. The case is submitted. Hillary clinton will speak to the media today. The office will hold a the office says she will hold a brief press conference. Live coverage here on cspan. Meanwhile, the hill reports democrats are urging her to speak out about conducting business in a private account. Democrats on a house panel demonstrating the house attack on in libya. They wrote his secretary of state john kerry to provide the no. This afternoon, reporters are lining up to recover this conference. By having it at the United Nations, only reporters with u. N. Credentials can attend. It usually takes 24 hours to get approval. Look here on cspan in just over an hour or so. Tomorrow on capitol hill, john kerry and Ashton Carter answer questions from the Senate ForeignRelations Committee in particular about the request for operation of force against isis and efforts for military and diplomatic solutions. Live coverage here on cspan beanie and 9 30 a. M. Eastern. Keep track of the Republican Led Congress and follow the new members through their session. On cspan, cspan2, cspan radio, and cspan. Org. The hill reports the war of words over president obamass Foreign Policy over iran is increasing as democrats criticized senate republicans, issuing an open letter to iran. The rebukes came all the way from the top of the party with president obama saying republicans are making common cause with factions in iran. Washington journal talked about the issue. Were here to talk about iran negotiations. Were getting to the wire. The deadline for there to be an agreement, a framework is what they have been calling it. With an agreement. Theyre calling it a framework. We have just come out from the last negotiations last week in switzerland, and secretary kerry and the Iranian Foreign minister will be going back to switzerland a week from yesterday. For what could be the decisive meeting. It may not be because we still have a little bit of time, the end of march. But i think there is reason to believe that they are getting very close to an actual agreement. Host your organization said in lieu of that, there were a couple of technical things that had to be resolved or were in the process of being. What are some of those issues . Guest some of them had to do with the time over which this agreement would last. There are still some issues in terms of the iranian facilities. There is still some issue although i think this has largely been satisfied with the number of centrifuges iran will be able to maintain. And there are some questions about the enrichment levels that those centrifuges will be able to what they will be able to produce. Host as iran been forthcoming in this process . Guest that is a question. I think this bit about his forthcoming as one would suspect. Which is, not particularly. But they have approached these negotiations, at least from a u. S. Perspective, looking for a way to make a deal. Now, one could argue about whether the iranians are prepared to make the political decision to go ahead and do this and to really forswear the idea of developing Nuclear Weapons but i think what we have seen so far is that there has been a genuine back and forth. Whether or not be back and forth on the iranian site goes far that to satisfy everyones questions remains, and probably one will see the answer to next week. Host if i understand it correctly, the iranians have set the process of what they are going through with their Nuclear Program has been for energy purposes. Guest correct, that has been their argument for quite some time, that they have the right to a civilian Nuclear Energy program. The concern has always been for the United States, for israel for others in the west, that they are using what could be a civilian Energy Program to mask to hide the development of atomic weapons which pretty much everyone is supposed to. Host we have heard about the u. S. Interests in all of this. Talk about the other countries involved. What are their interests particularly in a deal going through . Guest most broadly, they have the same concerns about iran possessing a Nuclear Weapon. This is not good for anyone. One could argue it might not even be good for iran. Because then makes an a target. They have an interest in not seeing a Nuclear Arms Race throughout the middle east, which is one thing that a lot of people have said will most likely happen if there is no deal here and iran goes ahead and continues its program trying to develop Nuclear Weapons. But apart from that, there is huge commercial interest at stake stop at stake. The sanctions relief, which is what iran will get in exchange for the deal, is not just good for the iranian economy. It is also good for multinational corporations that want to do business there. And there are already companies that are lining up, waiting in anticipation of there being some kind of deal. It is hard to understate the commercial interests that companies have, but the broader security interest is at the top of the list. Host of all of these countries that think iran should not have this program why is there concern of them having these capabilities . Guest well, this is a country that has been original player in the most volatile region in the world, and has not, to be charitable, always done the right and good thing in terms of stabilizing the situation. It is, as the uss, the leading state as the u. S. Says, the leading state sponsor of terrorism in lebanon with hezbollah, and now has troops fighting in iraq. Which in the shortterm, that is an interest that the u. S. Shares against isil, but they have also been destabilizing in trying to be destabilizing throughout the gulf. And the thought is that if a country that has that kind of history and policy gets a Nuclear Weapon, and i forgot to mention the whole iranian leadership wanting to wipe israel off the map, which is clearly of concern to the israelis. The concern is that if a country like that is able to develop a Nuclear Weapon that all bets are off and this will be horribly destabilizing, if not deadly for people in the region. At the same time, they are trying to develop longrange missiles so they can deliver whatever weapon they might develop at some point outside the region. And i think that is a serious concern for everyone. Host the Iran Nuclear Negotiations are at the top of our first segment this morning. We have matthew lee from the Associated Press, a Diplomatic Writer for that organization. If you want to asking questions the numbers are on the screen. And you can send us tweets and email. If the deal goes through, who gets what out of it . Guest lets remember, the end of march deadline for this Framework Agreement is not a final deal. That they have set a june deadline for. I think what we will see if they do get an agreement at the end of march, we will see some more limited easing of sanctions. And we will see a much more forceful push going into the last three months of the space they have allowed themselves to get the details, the appendices the technical aspects of what the final agreement would look like. But i think just getting the framework still is not you know, the final deal is not done just for the framework. I think we have another 3. 5 months of waiting if they get this framework. Host the first call for you is from boca raton, florida. Here is ken for matthew lee. Go ahead. Caller good morning, gentlemen. I read rouhanis book and he rhapsodize is about how he pulled the wool over the eyes of the english and the germans and the french in previous negotiations about nuclear materials. Im also concerned i remember in 2002 and they discovered the secret hits behind the Nuclear Facility buried beneath the ground. And im also aware that in the wikileaks that were published all of the arab states, assuming the Sunni Arab States would be against israel if we take out iran. Also our member that rafsanjani said that retaliation would mean that they kill 5 million israelis but lose 20 million persians or iranians, that it would be considered worthwhile. I also remember reagan, who was not my favorite president , who said trust, but verify. These people will not allow nuclear inspectors into some of these facilities. I wonder if we should not just tighten up more sanctions and possibly allow the israelis to be given they have already used saudi airspace in an attack on iran. Host color, thank you. Guest these are valor valid reasons to question whether or not an agreement will be reached and viable, and if it will, in fact, produce the results that everyone wants. Iran has a past history of serious deceit on this kind of thing, and still to this day the iaea, the uns nuclear watchdog, has not been able to close its file on what are known as possible military dimensions of the premiums the Previous Nuclear war capabilities in iran. What we are told about negotiating this agreement is that it will be verifiable. The inspections that will be allowed at the iranian facilities will be intrusive. I suppose, one has to take them at their word for that, but that is only that only goes as far as what the iranians will actually agreed to and then actually allow. Its one thing to say ok, youre inspectors can show up anytime, or with 10 minutes to us or whatever. Its another thing to actually let them do that. So we are a long way from peoples concerns being satisfied that the iranians are negotiating in good faith and even if they are, whether or not whatever they greet to agree to, they will allow. Host donna, go ahead. Caller my comment is that we have two republican senators and both of them have signed on to this letter. I am distraught over this. I think they should have allowed this process to move forward with our president and secretary of state and waited to see what would happen. That is my comment. Thank you. Guest certainly that is the democrats line in the administrations line. The letter is unusual to say the least. 47 senators writing an open letter directly to the leaders of a country they believe is out to destroy israel and destabilize a big part of the world. What i find to be interesting about the letter is i think there is an argument to be made, that the argument for those opposed to the mill seems to be shipping. For a long time, the argument was, whatever will come out of these talks is a bed deal. They cannot guarantee iran wont get the bomb, and it will allow them to keep a pathway. This letter, we are now seeing a different tactic, a different kind of strategy, writing indirectly because this is an open letter, to say shifting the argument from this is a bad deal to the president does not really have the authority to negotiate and agree to a deal that will last longer than his residency. That is clearly upset the white house and you see the comments from the white house spokesman yesterday. I am not sure the letter will have much of an impact. It may make the Administration Even more determined to try to get a deal done. You have seen the response from the rainy and the Iranian Foreign minister. He has a phd and its highly educated. He is not a dummy. Whatever else one might think of him, he called it a piece of propaganda and said it would not have any impact. Outside of the political discussion people are having in washington, it will probably not have that much of an impact, not a large impact, on the actual negotiations. I think it shows the concerns about a deal are getting stronger as we get closer to the first end of march deadline. I think that is why the strategy or the tactic is shifting a little bit here the argument that this is absolutely a bad deal. It does not seem to have caught on that much. One of the reasons is the israelis said, the steel is not good and lets keep the interim deal they struck in november of 2000 13. Lets keep that in place and keep negotiations going on and lets not agree to this framework. That i think undercut the argument that what is happened so far is bad for everyone but iran. I think we on that is why we are now seeing the shift that the president does not have