Our incredible nonpartisan mission was so dramatically exemplified last week when the Constitution Center was thrilled to announce the new chair former Vice President , joe biden. [applause] we are so excited to have the chance to work with Vice President joe biden who succeeds a Remarkable Group of chairs, governor jeb bush, president bill clinton, preceded by president george h. W. Bush and this Magnificent Group of patriotic americans from both sides of the political isle exemplifies the commitment to nonpartisan constitutional education o at the Constitution Center exists to promote and which is so necessary in the spines. We have a bunch of exciting programs coming up i want you to come and join including march 2 the members only Opening Party for americans. The rise and fall of prohibition. We ha have a Great Program on te Affordable Care act on march, a Wonderful Program on march 31 with geoffrey stone on the book on morality and the constitution and we are about to launch on april 13, im excited to tell this for the first time because it is going to be so great the Constitution Center has created a National Commission a madisonian constitution for all and we are going to ask what would the framers have thought of the current presidency, congress, court and the media and how can we resurrect the values in our technological age . This is great to be chaired by the republican and Democratic Senators and congresspeople that will have representatives from americans leading organizations from the executive branch, federal judges. Its how they are being challenged by the populace forces in the technologies and preserving the years to come. Ladies and gentlemen, it is now a pleasure to introduce a friend, americas leading scholar of policing, the author of this on all new book unwarranted, policing without permission which i need to recommend as the buck to educate yourself about institution and policing and what the courts have said. Its combined with this fresh and lawful and important Empirical Research about what works and what doesnt when it comes to policing combined with Creative Solutions about how to preserve the Constitutional Values in the face of technolo technology. And the previous book we the people is a phenomenal account of how the courts over time found Public Opinion rather than challenge it and have gotten in trouble in rare occasions as they have done otherwise so that is the book to begin with. Im recommending this as books you need to read to educate yourself to understand the relationship between the courts and Public Opinion over the course of history and this is the book to understand the relationship between the police and democracy in our democratic age. You can tell how excited i am to have this conversation. Please join me in welcoming mr. Friedman. [applause] we have so much to talk about but im going to just begin with the headlines of today which is the administration announced a new executive order involving changing immigration priorities to increase the deportation of Illegal Immigrants in a way that may require the hiring of new officers and extension of new monies. Some states declared themselves to be sanctuary cities and some municipalities signaled they dont want to carry out these new orders. I gather the same thing happened under president obama and the attorney general to cut off the federal funds from the socalled sanctuary cities. Give us a sense of the relationship between federal immigration officers and local police and what the constitution or the legal debate involves. It is a great question and a very un easy relationship between thease the relationshipl government in terms of policing. As you know probably better than anyone, the federal government can require state or local Law Enforcement to do anything and they are quite clear about that. Anything that happens from the site have to be voluntary. The federal government can purchase assistance in the state or local governments to help out, but that is a very firm line and as you have seen in the news theres there is a range f opinions about including many local governments saying we are not interested. The federal government can do its job the way they want to do their job but we are going to take care of the matter is the way we want to. Host what about the case involving drunk driving laws to withhold from states that didnt force them and that was okay because the purpose of the funds for related to the threat that in the Affordable Care act they said you couldnt threat to cut off medicaid funding because the purpose wasnt related to the original grounds. There were the basic principles that govern here. The first was the anticommandeering principle which means but it sounds like which is they cant take over the Law Enforcement apparatus and that happened in a case where when we wanted to institute federal gun checks the idea is we would get an order or require the officers of different jurisdictions to do the checks and the federal government and the Supreme Court said you cant require the federal, state or local Law Enforcement to do anything. You can go in and do it and asked to do it but you cant require it and that is important to them the federawithin the fet takes a lot of our money, handed out lavishly and you can encourage the state and local governments to do what the the y giving spending but the Supreme Court again has been quite clear that first, you cannot coerce with the money or threaten to yank away funds to such a degree that the state or local governments will feel like they have a choice and there has to be a relationship that basically what would happen if the government would have to be spending on something that is germane to what you are asking out of the government themselves. So there are limits and strong views about whether the limits are a good or bad idea. I will point out whether anyone thinks they are a good or bad idea has to do with ones own views into the party that has to be in power at any given moment. Which is never advice that we experience here at the Constitution Center. Side switching is not. Here it is the temple of principle and people have a good podcast later this week about this very question. Thank you for setting that up so well. Now to the spectacular new book unwarranted policing without permission, tell us first is policing without permission and what is the alternative democratic policing . As i thought about writing this book and i got interested in writing this after 9 11 it took me seven years to figure out what i wanted to say a light bulb and went off in my head one day and i realized we govern policing differently than Everything Else in the American Government pretty much. So in the rest of the American Government we have a system that is so familiar its like the air we breathe, we are a government of law so there are rules and we all know what they are. Not only are they transparent, but we have a voice in formulating them up front before officials act and i always at least try when we can to make sure they do more good than harm and we do that upfront. We have backend accountability also just to make sure that the rules are followed. But we focus on the front and accountability. Anendaccountability. And policing when we talk about accountability is almost all on the backend like inspectors general and the review boards and courtappointed monitors. Even body cameras if you think about it is a form of backend accountability to see what happens. Thats what we donbut what we p front what should policing look like and what do people think. That is without permission and policing with permission where we need all as a collective to formulate the rules should govern policing. No not promote democratic policing that you have an exciting project to tell us about. I had worked on this book for many years and ironically i started the book in 2008 and attempted to sell it initially on the premise was a lot going on and people should care but nobody did so obviously the world has changed a little since i started writing the book and right after edward snowden, i had a scary thought for an academic that the ideas in the book might actually have some traction in the world and started to work on this idea of the policing project and then ferguson happened and it became all the more appeared to me and us as the law schoo at the law e policing project that there was a need to try to engage the communities of people in the policing that we left too often to Law Enforcement and we dont get households involvegive ourse started the project and we do all the things i just mentioned in terms of the front end accountability. We write the rules and best practices. We do costbenefit analysis to find out whether they make sense. But most of what we do is work with Police Departments and communities to bring them together to find ways to do something we have not done in the United States which is to show them how they are policed and i want to stress because as you know my book has many difficult things to say about policing and we were very close with Police Agencies and Police Officials including philadelphias own chuck ramsey co. Chief across the river and so it is a joint sector. We are working to do this Great Program where they are coming from around the country to the Constitution Center to talk to school kid schoolkids ae constitution and word to go out into the world and we are so excited about that. Give us some concrete examples about how the project is succeeding. We are working in tucson, camden, cleveland, los angeles and what we are doing in every jurisdiction is trying to figure out what it would look like to bring the Community Voice into policing because we have done this historically and we can talk about why that is true that we have to figure out a way to do it. So we started by teaching the community and the question of what it would look like. They asked us and we were very pressed for time but in this piecin thispiece of the month w0 questionnaires from people in new york and the organizations with their views and we wrote a report and i am told we will have a response about how that policy was changed or not changed. Theres a lot of controversy about when to release body cameras footage and we will engage the community to do that. Herthat. Herethat. Here is the question we will go out to the community that give you a stark contract in tucson the chief has come to us and said i want an Advisory Council and he that can have input into the policing on a regular ongoing basis. You were leaving an Important Committee that would propose the model rules among other questions. Obviously you havent settled on any conclusions but what are some concerns the community is expressing and what might a model rule look like as you know theres tragic events around the country and this idea seems like the solution but it turned out it is complicated and expensive but not only is it expensive but theres all kinds of questions that need to be answered about when the cameras go off and what do you do if youve are in somebodys home and they want the camera off but the officer thinks that it should be on . One of the biggest questions is when should the public with the individual cant have access to it and that will be the pressing issue around body camera footage because a lot of the state and local freedom of mouth information laws do not allow access. The catch22 is you can get the footage if nothing happene of nt if something happened then you cant. So a device that is designed for accountability has the potential to be just another form of surveillance putting a camera around every officers neck or on their body. The trick is to balance the considerations. In the project that you have been very helpful with as you know, we dont have very clear answers but we want to give jurisdictions if you decide to go down this road here are the things to look at if you go down another hears things to look at. You tell the story of a young man that filmed and they were prosecuted for allegedly breaking and electronic surveillance law. The judge disagreed but you dont think the Solutions Come from courts but democratically accountable legislators. I think we have made a terrible mistake by turning the policing over to courts assuming they will take care of it for us. So the buck as you know its full ois fullof stories. I spent my research into a lot of time going out and unearthing stories where policing had gone off the rails to understand body and what it would take to fix it and the primary lesson is we have to take responsibility for the policing, not the courts. The court for reasons we could get them to have done a very bad job of making sure it happens in a good way and it is ironic because you know this given your role we assume the courts are taking care of things but it is a very bad assumption and even though i have many friends there judges they may not be happy reading the book because im quite critical of what it has done. You give many examples including what the courts say the expectations of privacy are often have no correlation to the expectations in the privacy quoting a study saying that things people are really worried about our stuff that the judges say they wont be. Why are the judges not effective in channeling the peoples values when it comes to the amendment and give some other examples where you think im wrong. Lets think about why the judges might not end up being very good at this and i could tell you a story about how the court was starting to think about policing and then crime rates shot up and Richard Nixon ran against the court and theyve been much more lenient towards policing ever since but i think that there is a structural problem that is fascinating if you think about it. So you are a judge and use it in court in cases come to you about policing. How do they get their . Occasionally the police post at the time the reason the case is in court is because the Police Caught somebody doing something. The person caught says i want to throw out the evidence the police broke the rules. Whether they throw it out or not its a lot to ask them to throw out the evidence if they have somebody they know is guilty but no matter what and most of the cases they fight about what the police have done and they caught somebody. Every time they do something they catch somebody. What the courts do not see all timebothtimes the police did exe same thing and it did not yield somebody doing something wrong. They dont see all of those negatives and if they had the whole picture than they would be able to ask important questions about how effective the policing is. One of the points i make in the book, then i will step back, i want to be safe, you want to be safe, everybody wants to be safe. We all want to live in a safe place but we dont know that the policing is as effective as it can be because weve tried to regulate it through the courts so thats why we need to get the whole picture as a society and then make pictures based on that. We talk about this in the book that drones in facial recognition, stop and frisk, its the whole damn it. And yet you say the judges and citizens have trouble getting this necessary information because of a lack of transparency. You tell the story in an effort to find out what is going on with these socalled stingrays and we couldnt get the information because of the secrecy law. The story is incredible and much of it is coming out now. But the federal government, i dont know what the basis was that the developing technologies track cell phones and it is an extraordinary technology. Think about a situation where somebody skipped out of somebody. You have the cell phone number and you can find where it is. They designed this technology and funded local lawenforcement agencies having the stingrays under a nondisclosure agreement that says you cant reveal the technologies that you are using even in court. We talked a little bit about the federal and state relationship. It put them in a terrible position so they didnt go to court to get the court orders to do surveillance. The police said that they were doing something else. Its like doing a maze backwar backwards. But then the story how they could get the information otherwise. And you know, there are things about policing that require secrecy we should be upfront and honest about that. Its different but not nearly as much as we think a lot of the secrecy is just a habit and we cannot make sound decisions about how we want to be policed unless we understand what are the techniques available, how effective they are and how they occur. You sa say theres operationl details how the details should not be. I will give you two perfect examples. I tell a story in the book about raids gone terribly bad and theres a lot that have gone bad. A correspondent writes for the Washington Post has documented on an online website all of them gone bad with people being killed, property destroyed, officers being killed, and you know a lot of it has to do with the training and equipping and when the teams are called out. It doesnt need to be a secret that we have the swat teams and they are equipped in certain ways. We may not want to reveal what the tactics are going to be going into the situation and we certainly dont want to put on the website how we will deal with active shooters. We dont want to give an instruction manual for the people that do us harm but we know that there is technology to track cell phones its not like a secret exists so we ought to have a voice in whether we want the Technology Used with those tactics used and what shape they should take. Have there been examples of states or local legislatures having to use these technologies in constructive ways . We find when the public does have a voice in the policy change, i dont care whether it is out of the collection and the nsa or the use of motorized equipment, everybody talks about the Armored Vehicles and whether the communities want those, those that the departments have gotten bayonets. I cant imagine why we would ever need one in an american city. But its true when the public has a voice to policin the polis but its also true that when the public has the voice is gives the policing a lot more credibility so this is a story i tell him the book that is super important. In Compton California there is a company that does aerial surveillance and they persuaded the city to try to do surveillance to deal with their crime problems and they did these surveillances and then the word got out and when they asked the spokesperson for the department they said the new people get nervous we decided just not to tell anybody which if you cant imagine any of the officialtheofficial statement ar context but this would happen, everybody got angry and they stopped down the road in lancaster there was a public debate and they all agreed to the surveillance. We see that around so many things. We gathered officials and we were telling these stories and i got halfway through and one of the chiefs interrupted me and said good thing they told people when they were on board. I dont know why we assume that people will be on board with effective policing but they do get on board very quickly this for you is a story about the eventual triumph of the democratic accountability at the end of a long drama that began in the Bush Administration when they stepped in and past three tomac but why dont you tell the story and what you think the reaction in the legislative response says about the democratics . The story is not over and it may never be over. Its a struggle that we have about the foreign intelligence gathering it authorizes the intelligence. I view the story as a perfect example. I think any time the surveillance is being used on the American People that this policing. Its an official deciding to proceed without permission at all and its ironic because it was at a time when congress was giving the executive tremendous authority and they probably would have given authority at this time. If they havent. That is what i think the constitution requires that the decision about collecting everybodys data they had a hard time getting their hand around the bridge that decided to do that and not to let anybody so that is what the book is aimed at. Are you happy with where we have ended up . In the bulk data collection, i will give you two answers to that. I am reasonably happy as a citizen in this country that has experience with policing and the constitutional law and it might take things in different ways. Im happy about the court itself that grants these orders. I am ecstatic as the author of the book in the sense that it became public and we had a robust public debate. If the Congress Reached an accommodation and i think that is how things are supposed to happen rather than in secret so if my views are not perfectly accommodated that is how democracy works. This is a story of the dangers of secrecy. They ge get a attorney general o reauthorize the program and refuse the hospital and the director stepping in and eventually that took place in secret and you think a better solution would have been reached sooner if the president have gone to the congress st. Off. Street off. There are people that disagree with me. But it is my conviction that the American People by and large do the same thing. Being safe is a balance. Its always a balance between using certain techniques are not using them and then the force that comes with those techniques and surveillance that comes with those techniques. We need that balance and by and large people get in the right place. I want to go back to something i said which is when it happens in secret, i dont have any confidence at all that we are getting to the right place. So the bulk Data Collections are complicated and you will find experts that say it is a waste of time and we are drowning in data and weekend manage all that we have, this is a fools error and you will find people that have an opposite conviction. It is a tough one to call but certainly to say it is worth a try collecting with everybody and they think that it is okay. I can accept that. All the chapters were exciting but one that i liked was your efforts to provide an alternative to the socalled third party doctrine. The courts have sai said if youn over the data to a third party like at t or verizon or whatever my company is, i abandon all expectations of privacy so simply by walking down the street i emit data stored by my provider and the government can get it without a very high level of suspicion because i dont have an expectation of privacy in the data. Some justices said this makes no sense in the world we store all of our private data in the data bases this would mean we have no privacy. They analyzed the problem and come up with some tentative solutions and alternatives. What are they . I think that hearing about a third party doctrinthe third pas almost unfathomable to people and you have to understand that justicjustice was first said yoe given up your privacy in a world that didnt have a cloud so i still think that it was odd because i put my money in the bank do i not have control of that information . But everything about it now is in the hands of the Third Party Provider and it is a very complicated question what to do about that. I do not claim to have an answer in the book i try to take it apart to see if there are things that we know. One thing that i conclude and many people will disagree is that a subpoena is a problem getting information from the third party there should be probable cause. Congresses paralyzed on this question right now. It cannot move. It cannot move because it is caught at the Exchange Commission and at the other hand the people [inaudible] congress is clear this up,. I think that would force congress to act. They provided a framework in congress has responded like the wiretapping decision of 1967 where they said here are the parameters. How will this work when it comes to the reform of electronic surveillance and email privacy. Theres a bill that was pending the set of course the contents of email should be treated like private letters yet you know there is bipartisan support in the bill has and pass. I think judges in all of these cases should say the statute either says no or in some cases the statute seems to say no but we dont have an answer. The solution is for judges to say no, probable cause is how we get information about people. Absent direction from congress. Some people think that the courts are such a problem, they should be deferential to the police in situations in which theres been debate within the situation. Theres still things that will violate the Fourth Amendment and other things like Legal Protection and we havent talked about other issues. Generally speaking, the irony is that the court set the lawenforcement would go to bodies and say we need to. Government is in the best position. Since a much of your argument hinges on legislature, is it too optimistic in this age . Its a fair question. I think one of the great characteristics throughout history as dysfunction. Legislature are often locked up in different ways. What i talked about in the book is courts deciding things in ways that force legislative fans. So instead of quartz ruling up and down and they do it with too Little Information and get it very wrong and sometimes for the police and sometimes for folks that are the target of police. They just try to force things towards democratic policing saying we will withhold permission until we have authority from a legislative body, then i think things will look different. Let me say two things that are important. First, i dont know how people react to hearing this. I give it talk at nyu some of my most liberal colleagues were like this is crazy how can you have rules for the police. At the end of the talk a very distinguished gentleman from germany looked up and said it turns out hes a accomplished law professor germany and thats how we do things in germany. It turns out in many countries there are rules about policing. The other thing you dont have to depend on legislatures. Theyre often messy places and i know lots of they get very strange outcome. Most of government does not run by legislatures deciding everything. Most run by them delegating authority through all kinds of different processes like getting public input on proposed rules and thats the kind of work were doing with the policing project. Sometimes are doing it with third party entities, but Police Departments are administrative agencies. Theres no reason they think cant get the work to get public input into their roles. The example is so powerful that the experience with the nazi a communist led the germans to adopt this great rule which solved the Surveillance Program they give them Broad Authority but they can only turn the information over to lawenforcement if they find evidence of serious crime. That control and the use of data could solve a lot of our problems. How could congress delegate to Police Departments the ability to adopt a rule like that. To think about the federal structure. Congress cannot delegate any authority, they can only delegated to federal Law Enforcement. As i was working on developing the argument in this book i spent two summers working with very Bright Research assistants to ask the same question which is why when every federal agency is that not true of the fbi. I had a Research Assistant work on it and she wrote me next line memo that didnt satisfy me the arguments were there but i still didnt understand it so had a right a perfect member the next summer and eventually came to understand what were the mechanisms but congress could and the fbi has, on occasion like with this manual go out and said they have started to get the idea that you should get some of this input. Locally we are working with policing agencies that realize they are on a much stronger footing in terms of legitimacy and trust if they work with their communities. Theyre coming to us and saying how can we do this and its a big change in it slow and painful at times. I think its incredibly rewarding for people to Work Together instead of the fingerpointing that we hear too much of today. Weve gotten this far without mentioning ferguson and policing is a big part of this book what is the connection between your thoughts about snowden and mass surveillance and ferguson in regulating police misconduct. Is the same problem. There are complexities with regard to racial minorities but you have to start with the idea of policing with permission. Whether its its the kind of militarization in the Police Department, whether its engaging and racing on racial profile or so know theres a racial effect all of that needs from the people we need to take better and do it we want. After ferguson, lots of those in our community had lots of questions about the United States government. Thats the miracle of american democracy. Some kept their equipment and some sent it back. Some said you have to go to her just publish which equipment you have. Theyre all fine solution. But the but the point was they were engaged. Its complicated because on matters of race even if you have the public involved theres a chance they will not be sensitive enough to racial minority. Ive two answers to that in the book. The first answer is that may be but i suspect if we got the public involved it would be a better place than now. Then theres the equal protection clause which govern how we treat groups. One of the points i make which i will expand on one of the things i want people to understand about policing is it has changed completely in the last 30 or 40 years. It didnt matter if they were involved 30 or 40 years ago because we knew it policing was. We would arrest a few people come search them homes, the techniques were limited. But now the stan age of technologies we have become, as you know best the subject of surveillance. So talking about suspicion and warrants doesnt always work and thats why its so important to say we need the public involved in making a decision. So long as were doing its everybody its okay. Think about airport security. Nobody has a warrant or probable cause and were fine with it. We dont worry about discrimination because were all walking through the metal detector one after another. What matters is policing and that subgroup not aimed at all of us. And thats where the equal protection clause comes inches if you you remember its race and we remember how to deal with it. We asked two questions. The first is is the group were doing this to behaving differently than everyone else in society . The second is, is the problem were dealing with so big that it justifies burdening everybody in that group to get a problem and the answer to that is almost always no. Yet, when it comes to policing profiling courts have adopted the watereddown test that says unless race is the predominant persis equal protection clause is not violated. Whats a better rule . You know how crazy that is. If i gave every constitutional Law Enforcement officer a test and i asked if race is a factor, not the factor in a decision, do we scrutinize it really closely or it doesnt matter as long as its. Every one would say if race is involved in the decision memo is the closest imaginable scrutiny because we do not like race been used as a factor. Your police and courts as i was just one factor is okay. Its unfathomable except except i think they lose their mind around policing. The value that is implicated by racial profiling is dignity and yet our constitution is much better at protecting liberty and special privacy. Thats a terrific question. One of the things i learned on policing is i worked in an institution where everyone looked at environmental law and everybody worries about costbenefit analysis. We try to figure out whether the benefits outweigh the harms. So my Research Assistant still get me at on policing it turns out there wasnt much in the way of literature. Even when i found some literature on policing none of that literature asked what about the social cause. In say cost this much money and it will cost that much money. Nowhere in the equation is their privacy clause. Think about whether that works or not. Nobody that asked that question ever ask what is the cost of the self interests, it was the cost of stopping and risking 400,000 people. In any other area if you did costbenefit analysis they would not take the cost into account. So you rate the constitution has not heard time of this. I dont think we should just be focused on the constitution. We should. We should be doing costbenefit analysis of policing because we be figuring out first is an effective thats what we want to know. Is it in a way thats worth the cost. In a little plug for the policing project. Weve embarked with funding on this twoyear project to try to bring much more costbenefit analysis to policing in the middle new york a few weeks ago we had all kinds of different fields to talk about the challenges and then the Police Foundation worked with them and they offered up all these things they want to know. Theyre eager to know about the costbenefit analysis. So were to put together a swat team to try to answer their questions. Is it effective, is the intrusiveness of the search proportionate to its perfective this and are these things the juries used away when they were looked at searches . It sounds like you believe democratically accountable bodys have to strike these balances and it sounds like it has to be at the local level. A strong strain of federalism in your argument. Now progressives are rediscovering federalism now that they dont have the presidency and congress and i have long talked about so is much of the solution likely to happen at a local level . This is incredibly complicated question. The president recently appointed a task force on crime. One thing they could look into is their own crime. Im hoping the Administration Starts to do something were done for decades now witches think about the federal and local lawenforcement. Lawenforcement is local. Theres a lot of amazing people involved it lawenforcement at the local level. I want to find a way to support them in their community so we can make ourselves safer. Even though it happens and theres 18000 Police Departments in the country there are some things that theyre going to do well but theres also going to be some that are going to be common. What we need to think through is how to differentiate different parts of policing so does a particular device work effectively to stop crime . Its probably probably not going to be different in those jurisdictions how do they feel about using that device might be different. What are the standards for the device . We could set standards as a suggestion and it could be altered. Things that the commercial cold was developed but then offered to the states. But then we need to use that to think sensibly about policing and how the federal government can help out. Im going to try this is a very vivid way of exploring the relationship between technology and the Fourth Amendment. Then ill ask about what to make of your citizens for your protection we will find tiny joan cameras in the air and they may fixate on anyone at anytime and follow me 24 slash seven and if i look suspicious the government can have access. They could be you or anyone. Just based on the fact that if we look suspicious or walking funny without warrant or probable cause the government is reserving the right to put a drone on us. Who believes that doing that without a warrant would violate the Fourth Amendment to the constitution which protects the right to the people to be secure in our persons against unreasonable searches and seizures . Who thinks that is not a violation of the court. [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] your argument, lets imagine to take one more look that its not anywhere near, was the answer to the gentlemens argument that theres no expectation of privacy . Youre right because the kind of balance can reveal so much about you. Your thoughts and emotion in your intimate associations that we have a right to keep it private because not to allow would violate more privacy. I would love to continue this. But there youve seen a great audience engage this debate. How would you counsel democratic legislatures to adopt a ban on this sort of ubiquitous 247. Ill tell you a story about jones. The Supreme Court generally thinks that if youre in public it doesnt matter, they got queasy about it when they followed it for long period of time and they said they cannot figure out what theyre saying but basically shortterm following round is okay, longterm is not okay but it something and we Wish Congress would do something. Thats pretty much what a big chunk of it said. I find that in the east people care much more about street policing and out west more about surveillance. Theres been a lot of fights about drones. The Police Departments have gotten the policy people are crazy. Seattle had to send their drones away. They sent him to l. A. But other technology has worked with a drone withdrawals and that seems the right way to go. The Supreme Court has put some limitations on, but beyond that. And how would you counsel folks to put limits on the sort of thing . Im not sure the question youre asking. If you asking what i think should happen with drones, i think we should educate everybody about the potential and threats of drones and let them decide. Thats what we do at the policing project. We provide the materials in whole Public Forums and help people decide. The three think should happen. As a mechanism legislatures can do it, third parties buddies can do it please departments can do it themselves. They have all the capacity in the world to go out and say we have a new gadget this is the good things it can do there may be things that concern you about it, lets have a conversation, well talk about it. The counter would be, arent courts more likely tacked on legislatures . The Supreme Court was fractured as you describe basically all nine justices rejected the argument that we have no expectation of privacy in public when its really intrusive. Then there was a decision in the oreilly case and they cannot open up their cell phone and read their emails because its her most intimate thoughts until allow it would be to warrant i would make a bet that a ban in 247 joan surveillance would be more likely to come from the courts. You go to the courts and the courts have two answers to choices, yes or no. If im a court and i know i say no that means the police cant do it at all. And ive given one reason why they go to yes but no means no. It may be that we need that technology. I dont really know that the federal judge it would be good at knowing whether we need that technology. They understand that so they air on the side of yes. Now in the world in which we operate that yes this taken as a sure, go do it no problem. Because the constitution doesnt forbid it doesnt mean its not a good idea or there shouldnt be rules about technologies use. The Supreme Court takes one or two drone cases in my lifetime around policing. How could you have a comprehensive set of rules. Its bonkers when you think about it. Drones can have a big impact on the lives just like self driving cars. Those of the kind of things we need detailed, thoughtful rules about just like we need when businesses are open and Environmental Concerns and theyre not going to come out of courts. This is such an important point of the book saying technology is changing values in profound ways that we cannot look alone. We the people have an obligation to engage in these issues so we can convince our representatives to craft the rules to protect these values in the 21st century. Im in a put on my reading glasses and everything. First, several questions about sanctuary cities in here two of them can the states withdraw funds from minutes the pallet is over the sanctuaries, what does the constitution say about what should be done . That is a terrific question. My instinct is that after the obama care decision there are lots of federal funds sitting in the cities of the federal government says well cut them off because you not to play with our lawenforcement request is probably not okay. I think the federal government has control over some funds that might be related to those implicated by sanctuary cities. Can you comment on seizure property with or without conviction of the president s comment on a recent meeting with lawenforcement. Forfeiture is a hot issue. It allows us to make her a important point which is the space about criminal justice and placing is not one that operates on a left right line and we should not think that it does. There folks on the libertarian right who agree with folks on the left about limiting government authority. There is been an issue where the libertarian right the idea was look, criminal engaging crime to get rich if we take the money away to engage in criminal activities will be stymied. It sounds good but what happens his first real allow the seizure without any lawful requirement we use to safeguard property and second, it becomes a bizarre funding mechanism for theres prophet sharing with local departments and departments have an incentive to catch money rather than drugs, to catch people transporting drugs and other kinds of crime and the point out that will just say youre getting all this for future amounts. This may, on healthy feedback loop. The president indicated he wants to intervene in chicago policing due to the high murder rate. What if any role does he have in chicago and what he support your model of democratic policing . The federal government is in chicago. Chicago has a terrible problem of violence. I was just there talking with Community Groups there. Its a tragedy. We should all do it we can. What the Police Department has come to understand is that theres a couple conversations about what we do about crime and how will we please. We need to police in a way where communities help prevent violence. We get a gang from shooting and nobody in the Community Comes forward. We have to defeat that by engaging the community. What can the federal government to . Theyre theyre already there offering technical assistance. I dont know were broadly what it needs to do. Ive heard people in chicago say if you have help center, but its not the role in this my whole point we need to think through the federal role and it would be very odd to send federal agents all over. I think ill use the final question the final one here. If you are trying to persuade him to adopt at what case would you make . I do not know. I do know that the day the inauguration and the whitehouse. Gov website was change the president put up a very strong statement in favor of lawenforcement. That is generally his position. If you read that statement carefully it says we need more support for lawenforcement and more lawenforcement and more Community Engagement. I think those words in the middle of that statement are extremely important and i agree that we want effective crimefighting and Community Engagement in the to have to go handinhand. Ladies and gentlemen, heres your homework assignment we are both law professors and you have homework. Its important that you educate yourself about the constitution every week. This new new constitutional issue in the news every time you see the first we need to go to the interactive constitution, who has downloaded . Have i not told you about this thrilling new tool . Go to your app store, interactive constitution. Com and youll find a leading liberal and conservative scholars in America Camille click on it and fine 1000 words statement about what they think the fourth a group amendment me you will find a veritable constitutional feast that will educate yourself every time you download this thrilling and free tool. Go to the interactive constitution read the statement about the Fourth Amendment, vanco and read the book. You need to know about all of this doctrine this is a long book. I read it today. But you can read it if you just set aside some time and you will educate yourself. Then who is a member here . Most people are, those who are not go join now at any level and youll receive our new weekly constitution newsletter where we send out the constitution of the week. Last week it was the travel ban, the relevant podcast who listens to the we the people podcast . Listen to them there in the itunes store for free. Then make up your mind about these complicated open questions that are at the center of the future of democracy. As as a model for this reason, thoughtful discourse you can do no better than begin with this book been by the great scholar policing. Please try me in thanking barry friedman. [applause] will sign his book downstairs. Go buy it and you can read it. [inaudible] book tv is on twitter and facebook. We want to hear from you. Tweet us, twitter. Com book tv. Or or post a comment on her facebook page. [inaudible] [applause] good evening. My name is john and i have the honor of being the executive director of the Ronald Reagan president ial foundation and institute. Thank you for joining us. An honor of our men and women who defend our freedom around the world in uniform, could you please stand and join me for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of