00:00On condition to be nice, be nice to all of these folks.
00:03So with that, Senator Kennedy.
00:05I'm always nice.
00:07How many of you worked for Senator Schmidt?
00:11All four of you.
00:13Is it true that he was suspended 23 times in junior high school in February alone?
00:27Look, I'm not trying to trick you.
00:32I'm not going to ask you how you rule on cases, and I'm not going to ask you about your political
00:36beliefs.
00:37I just want to know how you think.
00:39Let's start with the counselor on the end.
00:43Let's suppose I'm a cop, and I'm on duty, and it's 3 o'clock in the morning, and I see
00:51somebody driving down the road, not many other people around.
00:57It's on a Saturday night.
00:59Can I stop him?
01:03Just because you see him driving around?
01:05Yeah.
01:07There would need to be more of a basis than that.
01:10So the answer is no?
01:12Correct.
01:13Let's suppose that I recognize him.
01:16And on three previous occasions, he's been caught for charge of DWI.
01:25But he's not driving erratically.
01:27I'm the cop again.
01:30Can I stop him, Constitution?
01:31Same answer.
01:33No.
01:34No.
01:35You would need more than that to be able to conduct an investigation.
01:39Why doesn't that give me reasonable suspicion?
01:43I think merely the fact that he was driving at 3 a.m. and had been pulled over previously
01:49for driving under the influence wouldn't be enough.
01:51Now, it certainly, if he were swerving or driving improperly in some other way, if he
01:58committed a traffic violation or something along those lines, certainly the officer would
02:02be well within his rights.
02:04So we can agree our privacy is precious to us, even if we're in a car.
02:09Right?
02:10I would agree that the Fourth Amendment very thankfully protects us all from unreasonable
02:17searches and seizures.
02:18So how come the cops can set up a roadblock and stop everybody when they don't have either
02:27reasonable suspicion or probable cause just to check and see if they have insurance?
02:34So there are limitations on trap, on scenarios like that, roadblock cases.
02:39But can they do it first, Councilor?
02:42I mean…
02:43Officers can set up roadblocks if they are applying it based on a neutral and articulable
02:48standard.
02:49And if that standard relates to something that is specific to automobiles.
02:53So they could not stop every car to search…
02:56You're right about the law, but why is not that not…
03:01They don't have reasonable suspicion.
03:02They're stopping everybody.
03:04They certainly don't have probable cause.
03:06It's intrusive.
03:09I mean, I can be…
03:10I can spend 10 minutes in line for them to check my insurance.
03:13What's the basis for that being constitutional?
03:16I think the way I would frame it is that the courts have decided that scenarios like that,
03:23and in scenarios like that, officers would not be acting unreasonably.
03:27So they would not be violating somebody's Fourth Amendment rights.
03:30Because the Fourth Amendment…
03:31Guarantees against…
03:32…prehippings unreasonable searches and seizures.
03:35Correct.
03:36And how do you determine whether something's unreasonable or not?
03:38Well, I think that would very much depend on the situation, the specific facts and
03:43the context.
03:44Don't you balance the costs and benefits?
03:46In a scenario like that, yes.
03:49Okay.
03:50Cool.
03:51Judge, what's the rule now that the Supreme Court follows on reapportionment cases?
03:59Congressional redistricting.
04:01Congressional redistricting.
04:02Congressional redistricting.
04:03Congressional redistricting.
04:04My understanding, Senator, is that the Supreme Court has decided that that's a political
04:10issue and under the political issue doctrine that essentially the courts really don't have much
04:15of anything to say about political redistricting?
04:17If Missouri's legislature gets together and it redraws districts and they're going to say
04:24a majority of Democrats in the legislature.
04:27So, they say we're going to redraw these districts to benefit Democrats and we're not going to
04:34be reluctant to say so.
04:37They say it in front of God and country.
04:39Is that okay?
04:40Well, it's pursuant to the Supreme Court precedent.
04:44It's legal.
04:45Okay.
04:46Okay.
04:47All right.
04:48I'm not going to get to all of you.
04:52Counselor?
04:53Just counselor.
04:54Yes, ma'am.
04:57Do you think the meaning of the Constitution is immutable?
05:00So, I think that the, sorry, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that the.
05:08I want to know what you think.
05:10So, yeah, my view in terms of like what it is is that, you know, my way of looking at
05:20the Constitution is to say what does the text say and what did it mean at the time that it
05:25was passed?
05:26And this is something that the U.S. Supreme Court also says.
05:30If that's not clear, I think there are other things you can look to like history and tradition
05:34to decide what the text means.
05:35You look to what it meant at the time it was passed?
05:38Correct.
05:39What it meant to whom?
05:42To the people who were passing it.
05:44To the people who wrote it?
05:46So, I think there are various different ways of looking at this.
05:51And I think the U.S. Supreme Court has said that you look at the meaning that the words
05:57would have to the public at the time that the Constitution was ratified.
06:02That's right.
06:03I'm done.
06:05Congratulations.
06:06Thanks.
06:07Senator Padilla.
06:08Thank you, Mr. Chair.
06:09And appreciate your patience in allowing me to.
Comments