Of minor crimes like speeding as we point out in our brief, dui, littering, all kinds of minor crimes the person can make a fairly convincing argument sometimes that evidence on the phone would be relevant to that crime of arrest. I think that brings me where i want to end, understanding what the rule the government profounds would do in terms of just ordinary police work. Remember this case starts with a traffic stop for expired license plate. It is Everyday Police work that traffic stops are the beginning of criminal investigations and a leverage point into searches. If you adopt the rule at that says, even a gant rule that says, if you can making a argument that evidence on the phone would be relevant to the crime of arrest, take the suspended license, you may have an email from the dm vteling you better come in to renew. If that opens up every americans entire life to the police department, not just at the scene, but later at station house and downloaded into their computer forever
Island when my father was recruited to work at a Textile Factory there. My parents, like the parents of those who might be eligible for deferred action under the president s executive authority, came here in pursuit of the American Dream for their children. Last month, president obama announced policy changes that bring muchneeded humanity and transparency to our immigration system. The president s actions are well within the scope of his authority. He is relying on the doctrine of prosecutorial discretion which you heard about which provides the department of Homeland Security as well as every Law Enforcement agencies in this country the authority to set enforcement priorities to target resources and to shape how the law will be implemented. The doctrine of prosecutorial discretion is well established with solid constitutional, legal and historical grounds. First, it is well settled in the courts that the executive officials have wide latitude in exercising this prosecutorial discreti
Fully to our society. Reasonable minds might disagree on the politics or whether this is even real good policy. But what issen deniable is that the status quo is wholly unacceptable. Lupita, the brave 13yearold who is in the audience today, understands the psychological trauma the threat of deportation can cause. I met her over eight years ago when her father was detained in a large Los Angelesarea raid. During the years that followed, lupita suffered and struggled. Most americans understand that u. S. Citizens like lupita need their parents to help them grow. The president s actions are good news for lupita and her little sister. Because her mother isabel who is also here today should qualify under this new Deferred Action Program. Every daughter needs their mother. And our nations laws should support Strong Families rather than rip them apart. What is truly at stake here today is the fight for the sole of our nation. Are we going to continue ripping parents away from their children .
Consistency. Basically the west and the United States and germ anyway, if they are on you are on the right side of the history, i tend to agree and its our problem that we cannot cope with the modern world. The russian problem. But in you might call it technical terms or in day withs day term daybyday terms there should be more responsibility and consistency in the west. Not necessarily do something but if you are not prepared to do, dont say you are. We havent solved the ukraine issue. But i want to move on to something that the ambassador put on the table, which is that if we want to get to audience questions as what does this mean . This a really fundamental term or shift in the relationship of nato with russia . Are we going to say this is one of those hinge points . Well, the depend on what russia does. It takes to to tango, obviously, but from any point of view, is a said before, we dont want to close doors. We kept the nato Council Operational and still want to cooperate with ru
Should be given to data stored on smart phones. This is an hour. Well hear argument first this morning in case , riley v. California. Mr. Fisher . Mr. Chief justice, and may it please the court this case involves applying the core protection of the Fourth Amendment to a new factual circumstance. It has always been the case that an occasion of an arrest did not give the Police Officers authority to search through the private papers and the drawers and bureaus and cabinets of somebodys house, and that protection should not evaporate more than years after the founding because we have the Technological Development of smartphones that have resulted in people carrying that information in their pockets. Just just to test the principle for why the police ca search and seize some some objects. Consider a gun. The arrestee has a gun on his person and the police take the gun. Is part of the reason for that seizure to obtain evidence of the crime or is it just for the safety of the officer and the