counsel here on i'd like to reserve two minutes for a bus leaves granton thank you your honor this case is about whether the st amendment requires the state courts to allow access under the st amendment in limited to the right to attend the right to observe the right to report on what what is observed in criminal proceedings criminal proceedings here at issue are plenty arrangements in philadelphia fact that it is up to the states and the policy decision to make that determination and so you said as you mentioned being accorded ten d the difference here is that we have you know the request of the claim from the bell fund was to make audio recordings of these which carry their own special prejudices we s a an observer from bringing in their homes do not refer to me recording that's what the rule says on its face your honor you know and you know from a practical standpoint right if you ha somebody that can sit there and take dictation let's say you know word for word down on their own handwritten note which isn't program but it of course caused the press and the public are allowed to take notes from that  would be prevented i listened to it it's a little different from someone taking notes on their own to bring in a court reporter and and you know sitting there and typing away with it well that's the magistrate's position as to someone coming  information not simply to access to the physical brain i would agree that there is a st amendment there's the st amendment right of access to the courtroom there's a separate st amendment right to information yes  we've got in mind you framed the question for us at the outset about whether there was a right for a private parties to make audio recordings but it is that is that really the question for us in the abstract or do we need to consider that against the backdrop here of circumstances where the court does not permit any other mechanism for accurate and complete documentation of what is said and done within this public hearing we're i think then you know if you if you also have to look at what white the white with what sat with this court  said which you know course you know we we talk about both sides in the briefs and the district court is whether the regulation here you know regulates the manner of access to arrangements or restricts the information in other words doesn't meaning unfettered right to information there you know there has to be some there's some reasonable limitation on that to the degree of balancing competing interests with your right information  someone is deprived of liberty or whether they are released with the potential risk of  flight i'm sorry i missed the question but whether that information should be constitutionally protected you mean the reason they put it whether that then there is there is a right to that information i think there's a right to that information it's and you have a right to come into court and and and gather that information which is what the court told again is that the question is whether it meaningfully interferes with their ability to inform themselves bail bond of the different documents that are filed indicate what the bail is there may be special conditions on there in addition be the bulk data reports that we talk about you know have a lot of objective has to provide reasonings for their bail decision when they deny bail and sometimes during these conversations or other stations given during these arrangements there may be reasons for that but again it's something it your argument is kind of to be reduced to an argument of a question of degree it seems that you willingly admit concede by what you're doing but i don't know if it's challenge so may not be a concession that the public has a constitutional right of access to build you just say that that constitutional right the degree of that right stops when it comes to the ability to record in this case  means that information and mean is there anything it's just a question of degree is that right you take it up to a point and then you say pass this point there is no constitutional protection that's correct your honor you  pass the point i mean you know we don't we don't disagree that there is a st amendment right to attend to the bail hearings and that you know what the what the state supreme court has done here in arraignment court and done here as many states have done  and having these type of regulations is to balance the constitutional interests here certainly the st amendment rights of the public and the press to attended to obtain information but also for the affirmative constitutional duty to ensure that you know to mitigate the chance of any pretrial prejudice to make sure that there is a fair trial and also to ensure that the administration and the the state courts  administer their courts so doing all of that you know for these you know luminary arraignments again going back to what the courts upheld is there's no constitutional right and it becomes a policy question and here you know there's there's a wealth of information that it's available about arrangements and you know that the u s supreme court said in the hollingsworth case what it was in the proposition eight case talking about whether or not courtroom proceedings could be broadcast they were dealing with an administrative issue there was they did say reasonable minds may differ on broadcasting and what type of regulations or whether broadcasting should be done you know this this rule here is a statewide rule i mean the ruling although technically limited to arraignment court as applied here you know pretty much reverberates across the state is as your honour's are aware there is a basically the same challenge in allegheny county  and these challenges can also be brought in in the magisterial district courts which are very different bars logistics and administrative issues with this again it's hearing and it's difficult to measure that that difficult to measure yes i see the issue of whether we're talking about here is simply  a means of recording whether there is a particular rate for example to an audio recording if that is that really the right of access and if you or is it is that is the question whatever  gets put forward whether the government through its use regulation in that given all of the circumstances that apply has materially interfered with that right to information and  if so then why are we talking about this as a right to an audio recording as opposed to a right of access to information such as  be helpful with answers we will exceed time for both parties thank you your honor and now that we've done that i'm trying to go back to get to the gist of your question which might have been my fault for for asking for additional time i'm sorry i could you could you  this is a as a right to do with audio recording as opposed to access to information it seems critical information about the reasoning for other full documentation about the piece of information that's been requested i'm courts may prohibit and in our own federal rules prohibit broadcasting  example but we provide not only access to court to the courtroom for those who are able to be physically present but transcripts that can be publicly available upon the scene of a fee so it isn't the right  the issue of transcripts came into this case that was introduced by the district court because the complaint here is always been about making audio recordings and we need them for the tone and tenor and to insert them you know into online reporting audio in this case in particular i mean obviously i let miss you know mr o'reilly may want to address that as well but i mean this case was brought is as an audio case the issue of transcripts came up during the underlying litigation the district court was was interested in the issue and you know judge across back to your question if i may continue i know i'm way over time but just you know the interesting correct me if i'm wrong state law require some inquiry into the ability to pay and a bail hearing and so there's a little let's assume for now that there's go give a statement of reasons for denying my bail but you set my bail way too hung with out inability to pay and it without even making an inquiry into an ability to pay so you just walk me through what's going to happen pay but but what exactly happens if that critical inquiry is not made how does the court system as a practical matter know whether or not it has been and if the court system doesn't know and then does that that's a problem for the public to well again it's totally to know your honor so if it starts a new the factors that are taken into account you know all the factors that are special master to look into how arrangements were being conducted in arraignment court and one of the issues that came up in the petitioners in that case was whether or not there should be some type of verbatim record and i know we we  cite to the special masters report and they've said whether this should be the policy determination they're not required because it's a total no vote hearing and then there's a lot of administrative cost benefit analysis so in other words or judge if if you know if you were to arraign me and i didn't like the bail you set and the judge crouse what is the next judge you know hire i could go to her and file a motion for an appeal and we would start over again judge kraus would review the factors and we would start from there so so it's pay inquiry there and let's say that the person brought before the court said hey i'd like to be asked that at some point time is it's never recorded it either state what is their problem in terms of just finding out what happened or would you do the is there some work around there that yeah so judge let me let me explain how it works and arraignment court because it's different how it works across the rest of the state an arraignment court there is an emergency full court judge who's available so usually you know that the arrangements are done sort of i think there's about three blocks a day roughly and that if it breaks at the end of that block if either side which you know usually be the defendant wants to appeal that bail but there is a merge and there's emergency judges available but that benetton of itself is not there's there's no again there's no official verbatim record of that there is a document that comes out of that that is filed as to what the outcome of the ballots feel is if later on there's some type of motion filed you know where it's a little more formal those next hearings up my understanding is that there are there are audio recording later later hearings from from an audio person from the prejudice from the audio perspective there's no audio of those released if anything really would be released it would be a transcript so there it so there is a bit of a difference there and there's also the opportunity for a defendant to speak to counsel so there is also you know i mean the bill from points out of one of the reports sometimes that these arraignment the defendant might just start talking about the underlying charge of the response to the special to be and it gets a little complicated but the defenders association in that case under my understanding we're going out stop going out to the police departments where the defendants were for for unrelated to authorize a recording to be made of the judicial proceedings by the court by defense by the defendant or defense counsel on him by the prosecutor  and then places the restriction on their use of that information but not not on their ability to create the recording in that context where that has been  employed in the courtroom because it created any again any any disruptions to decorum or prejudice to their trial not that i'm aware of your honor  i'm not i mean certainly the rule provides that it can't it can't be publicized and you know it's different if you have counsel at counsel table and say well i guess now you can probably set your phone up to depose to an actual recorder to do that there where it where it's obvious i mean that certainly counsel or the defendant are under more control of the court than somebody sitting back observing so i'm not from the from the disruption side and thinking about if i was sitting in court i would say that the handheld recorder would be could be less disruptive i mean the issue is if you know if if ten people show up and you know that arraignment court magistrate has to determine in forcing this rule is you know are they only using a silent handheld recorder is somebody using the phone with video of someone taking pictures i mean in a way if somebody just brings the court reporter filing these to know what what they're experiencing that now in the court you know i my understanding is that they are not they don't they're not in the courtroom so if there was an issue that they would be called down correct and you know that's the issue here i mean certainly it's hard for for the arraignment court magistrate sitting there to determine you know who's using this for what i mean certainly we you know we understand that at least the bail fund is using  it for their purposes but there could be someone who came in and taping these things for you know prejudicial purposes to put out on the internet but none of that man i mean not and none of that mess it's i and so different members of the public want information for for different reasons and so some people want it to do for him some people maybe wanted to you know highlight other aspects but but that doesn't matter the st and then the name calling doesn't well i let me just clarify or i'm not saying that it depends on what they want to use it for whether they can come in and attend and observe and take notes my point was more of  the reasonable regulation to prevent to prevent audio recording in the prejudice of the defendant's own words getting out so if the st amendment says that you can make your own audio recordings and then take them and distribute them anywhere but that's that's a potential prejudice that the state can mitigate against i agree i'm not saying that just because somebody wants to come in and you know write something critical of the court system or write something nice about the court system the best matter whether they're able to send an observe more i think specifically as in this context it writes to a comprehensive record of the proceedings now of course that language comprehensive record that comes from whiteman woods when this court was explaining why the right of access wasn't violated in that case the reason it gave was because the plaintiff in that case was able to obtain a comprehensive record of the proceedings but even stepping back from whiteman would specifically now right to a comprehensive record that's just fundamentally  in to the broader right of access under the st amendment right the reason the supreme court tells us and this court tells us the reason why the st amendment protects the public's ability to get into the courtroom and observe court proceedings is of course to card people's ability to discuss those proceedings to engage in public discourse outside of the courtroom right so it is the free discussion of governmental affairs is the ultimate objective of the right of access that free discussion of governmental affairs is the language it's echoed again and again through all the right of access cases and that free discussion that discourse rests fundamentally on the public's ability to memorialize what happens well well let me just let me just i mean i get that let me just let me just point out something and one tells you know a litany of things that maybe members of the public in that discourse would say bees are problem for instance quote a magistrate imposed five hundred dollars cash bail after learning that the defendant was halmos and staying at a shelter quote and there's there's a bunch of bullet points on here so i guess my thought is if there's these strike me is allowing for meaningful public discourse and so i guess the question is do you think these do not allow for meaningful public discourse i wouldn't put it that way i think they do allow for sun discourse because it meaningful that my question is meaningful public discourse right and i can  argues that it does and not just is here in the e u but that's that's kind of whiteland what slightly well it was a case limited it didn't give full conference there was videotapes there that they said you don't have so i mean it depends what you mean by comprehensive comprehensive doesn't mean everything that's possibly available so that it sounds to me that there is the ability here to allow for meaningful discourse i thought that this list did a great job of saying if the public is concerned about this the difference between having a verbatim record and not having a verbatim record is a night and day difference it's the reason why appellate courts for instance require transcripts of lower court proceedings it's the reason why newspaper reporters quote their sources instead of paraphrasing so let me ask you this then if it's if it well let's say this case takes place not in twenty one but the seventy nine s before we have any sort of audio recording for we have sent a graphic records before we have anything else like this this bullet point list is going to be about as good ringback as anyone walks out of that proceeding with it and so is it your position that the constitution has kind of over time allowed for moved up and said no you get something better than the sluices technology improves that the constitution somehow tethered to constitutional technological improvements so that when more improvements are available to allow a more comprehen court does not although the supreme court does release audio recordings of all of its arguments shortly after argument but the turning to judge phipps is question about technology we don't think that the right of access is tied to technological developments in what the recording capabilities are we do think it's tied to what the public's expectations of a comprehensive record are and those do evolve over time nowadays if you want to say what actually happened you do need to have a verbatim record there's a good example of this in the record in this that's what we mean by comprehensive record i should say also you know we think that this link right this bridge between getting into the court room and that st phase of the right of access and then the public discourse that happens outside of the courtroom that last phase of the right of access this court's decision in fields i think highlights why it's so important why the st amendment is so concerned with restrictions on the public's ability to document what the government is doing as as fields puts it there's no practical difference between suppressing the public's ability to document what the government is doing and suppressing speech about what the government's doing certainly there are reasonable restrictions that can be imposed and we recognise fields was dealing with police activity out on the street but that link that connection between that threshold right of access to the information the ability to then talk about that information and use it in public discourse to take that information as an input into the output of that free discussion of governmental affairs that all hinges on that on where right of access triggers right of speech but at the same time the federal government has done a lot of things for not just courtrooms but it it was this statute that enacted the freedom of information act it was a step back shoot in pennsylvania that's the right to noah and so it seems that you know well there is a game of dominoes going on there that a lot of times these open access provisions tom not through constitutional demand quire me but i just the willingness of a democratic society to have transparent open government and so i think the tension that i have with your point and is just when does something become constitutional because certainly you know i don't think anyone saying that the access report of the freedom information act is a constitutional imperative and and and when is it just maybe good government and so do you have any kind of limiting principle there is or are we back to comprehensive right oh i think there is a limiting principle at least one which is that this right to a comprehensive record that we're describing that one woods recognizes that only keep seeing if at the threshold stage the st amendment right of access attaches in the st place right so you know as the court knows there is this logic and history test that the supreme court has handed down in richmond newspapers on through the you know the years and applied repeatedly that says the st amendment right of access that constitutional required and all that it requires doesn't necessarily kick in for every type of governmental proceeding a couple of years after whiteland woods for instance this court decided the north jersey media the ask kroft case which dealt with the right of access to deportation proceedings or certain type of deportation proceedings and it said that the right of access didn't kick in there if the right of access doesn't kick in in the st place then everything that follows from it including this rights to a comprehensive record doesn't follow from it so that i think is a limiting principle that's already embedded in constitutional  enterprise firmly say that a court has to produce its own transcripts or whole proceedings on the record that's not our position we do think and tarmacs pretty clear that if a transcript exists that the right of access attaches to that transcript obviously we're in a court of no record here so there are no transcripts so the question is what can the court do to restrict the public's ability to memorialize the proceedings what can they do to stop the court from obtaining a comprehensive record of the proceedings that's the universe we're in we think and tars instructive for all the language in target that highlights why it's important to have documentation we think that is just reemphasizing the same point that the court doubled down on in white when words a few years later that is about the case then why why isn't it reasonable restriction to say there can be access in a courtroom there can be taking of notes but we're going to draw the you then asking us to mandate as a matter of st amendment that court create records like transcripts that don't otherwise exist right so a couple of responses st on that st part of the question is suing that there is a potential of prejudice why why isn't that good enough to justify these restrictions the reason is because there are already safeguards for that right and specifically and i think this is another limiting principle to judge flips as earlier question we're not contesting that the st amendment allows judges if they can show that specific need that specific harm in a particular case to close the courtroom right there's a standard that's set for that in all of the right of access cases it's a high standard but it exists and we have we don't take issue that that's assumption that there is this potential for prejudice if even if the potential exists in the abstract there's no evidence again if that happened in pennsylvania for the other types of proceedings that happen on the record and there is no shortage of other jurisdictions including the district court that decided this case that make audio recordings of all of their hearings including bill proceedings available to the public without any consequence the sky hasn't fallen footnote nine of our brief includes a non exhaustive list of numerous jurisdictions including many big cities so so so maybe this begins to double back on to your point of it's the public's expectations that drives what sort of st amendment right of access should come into play because you're saying of expectation but isn't public expectation a standard of public expectation really just a proxy for democratic process i mean how are we to evaluate public expectation we take a poll we learn that eighty percent of people want it percent of people want it that then haven't we kind of just somehow it in a democratic process into a constitutional standard and that's really strange because i know because it seems to me that what would happen is if eighty percent of the people want it and you have a working democratic process for a just vote and change you know change f so so i guess my thought is it seems that public expectation begins to get a little bit problematic because if it's driving that's rational for constitutionality why why we don't care about constitutionality just have to writes i want to be very clear we're not saying that public expectations determine the contours of the right of access we're saying public expectation informs how you conceive of what a comprehensive record is so to your earlier question in the seven hundred and ninety s no one expected a comprehensive record of a court proceeding to include a verbatim record because it was virtually impossible to do that with a quill and all things from the reason that's different now is because all courts and i do think that what's happening in these bail hearings is unique most courts do you have verbatim records being kept so when the public wants to know what happened in a given proceeding the verbatim record is what they're expecting again that's what appellate courts expect this off the record bail hearings off the record proceedings about whether or not a person is going to go to jail or go home that is rare it doesn't happen in delaware it doesn't happen in new jersey it doesn't happen in numerous states across the country and so it doesn't happen in any federal district court in a country change if this case if philadelphia wasn't an outlier what if what what what if what if what if all of a sudden every court did the exact same way philadelphia does that change potential mean again it's a it's a strange it's strange the kind of get in that world because it's so different from the norm but if it were the case then i thought that might actually change what public expectations of a verbatim record were i think then you might be closer to that seven thousand nine hundred and fifty ration where really was just  case that there were no verbatim records again though that's not where we're at right now we're in a situation where this is very much the exception to the rule which is on the record proceedings particularly high stakes proceedings like this and when you have high stakes proceedings like this that are declaration of movie he said it is impossible and part of that because of the nature of these proceedings it is impossible given the rapid back to back to back nature of the proceeding the volume of information being exchanged it is impossible for a person even  the parties to the case to make their own recordings if they want to there be no need for the party to bring that case i do think that provision that your honor is now highlighting one hundred and twelve the does underscore and i think one of judge fixes earlier questions went prohibitive and that's the reason why we didn't see that particular relief here and i should say when we talk about this meaningful interference standard from whiteman would that has to apply to whatever means of providing a record the  available so in the same way that making transcripts available at five hundred dollars a page or something exorbitant could still raise a st amendment access question under that meaningful interference and heard so too would requiring the public if they want to obtain a verbatim record to bring in their own do not refer to hire another person to come in it's also important to remember for these proceedings in particular which are happening twenty four hours a day seven days a week the cost of having to hire a stenographer to come in in many instances prefer is now require an audio recording to really ensure accuracy you know they're not actually simply able to capture a verbatim record nowadays with just their simple and a graphic device but the last point i'd make on this is that is a good question just greenberg is i think you have to wonder what the underlying motive is for a rule that allowed stenography and only stenography as the only means of obtaining a verbatim record at the point where you're requiring the public to go hire another person and bring in another device a much larger device in order to capture a verbatim record and shell out all that money it would seem that the purpose is really just to make it difficult for the public to obtain a courthouse security inspect these devices in advance right under those circumstances there's truly no disruption or risk and allowing them to use a handheld device which would be just less burdensome for all parties i can see that my time is up and i'm happy to answer any other questions the court  circumstances that the bail fund would not have a mirror for you as applied st and then challenge i think that's right with the conditions that you impose that is if the transcripts for instance are being made available on a reasonable basis at a reasonable cost and they're complete and accurate then i think that would solve the violation that is the violation of the right to a comprehensive record similarly if those audio recordings were made available to the public and they actually were capturing what's happening during the proceedings you may know there is some dispute in the district court about the quality of those recordings we've never actually heard them ourselves but if they really are capturing everything that's happening during the proceedings and they were made available to the public absolutely now we think that w i mean there's always a problem there though right because you can always do one better you can say ok transcripts are better than no transcripts audio is better than transcript because it can capture tone in other things mineo b expressions and i can tell you're good at it because you know when one of the judges here is wanted to ask the question and you get ringback your stop so so i mean we've got a hierarchy of media and so so so this this comprehensive standard you can always say i want something better because new media gives you better that's that's why people like new meat it tends to be better and so one of two things that aust me i don't see a limiting principle we either go to the outer limits of of media and say you get the best because that's what comprehensive means it should be video or you get the minimal which is show up take notes on your own your pad of paper but in terms of what's in the middle in terms one does stock yeah i think what lin wood is actually a perfect illustration of where it stops right when would the analysis turned on do you have as just a threshold question for the plaintiff to make out to right of access claim in this context a threshold question do you have another ability to obtain a comprehensive record where again when woods meant a verbatim record that's where we are drawing the line in this case comprehensive record here means of her being a record and just as well and would said hey you can obtain a verbatim record through an  where members of the public would be assured a look this i can we can all take it all down twenty of us can show up we can all take it down there might be some dispute later but but but will be twenty of us who take it down this way in that scenario would that be sufficient for comprehensive i think it comes close i think the reason the one aspect of that scenario that i think would still be potentially problematic under whiteman wood number of the public would sit in the room got it so i mean in that circumstance if if if it was undisputed in the record that an individual could walk into a proceeding and with a pen and a pack could capture a verbatim record and it was a reasonable needle for them to do so we'd be in a very different case in this case the opposite is undisputed here the opposite being it is undisputed that a person cannot do that in these hearings because of the way these hearings operate and that's not just you know the und were able to capture one offline things like that they also say i think explicitly that they could not capture verbatim record they could not capture more there were things that they missed in their court watching efforts so here we really are in a situation where there is no question the making and i think you know the neal desperation identifies a few different aspects of the white why it's impossible to capture her being a record but to your question about how does that impact the public debate i think it impacts it substantively in that the inability to obtain a verbatim record colors the ability of your your credibility when when you engage in public discourse about this issue with the same thing that feels toss about when it says how recordings lay aside subjective impressions for objective facts right that's the same issue that we're talking about when it comes to the difference between a verbatim record like a recording and simply handwritten accounts right again there's these disputes that the bilson just had with public officials over their accounts of what's happening there is a concrete difference between having a verbatim record and not in these proceedings we know because it's undisputed in the record you cannot walk away from these proceedings with a verb in a record just by showing up davis thank you rhonda just a few points of light to follow up on that judge that started off in his questioning you know what one of the st amendment rights of information and how far does that go judge greenberg writing for this court in that kremer case in one thousand nine hundred and two recognize which i think it's undisputed that the right to receive information is not unfettered i mean to the extent you want if somebody believes a comprehensive information about what goes on why not constitutionally require state courts to make judges available to be interviewed for church when are constitutionally required to update a compilation and something to provide so in this case and what all the courts have held in looking at this is it's a policy determination the states are free to experiment it's an issue of federalism and comedy of the state courts have are in the best position to to weigh all of these constitutional issues inside of them you know so a real tension here i mean in terms of legal standards that are just flooding here isn't the real tension here between on the one hand a comprehensive record and on the other hand qualified as opposed to an access it seems that those are smashing into each other in some point in time we have to decide you know a complete and comprehensive record doesn't always feel consistent with qualify right of access and so it seems that it's those two legal principles there are butting in we either have to find a middle ground between them or we have to pick one what do you think about that if i phrase that conflict correctly or missing some i think your honor is i mean the supreme court has said it's a qualified right of access you know that this phrase about a comprehensive record i'm not aware of  the ability to obtain information about what is going on i think when you look at that and again you look at the courts that have said that this is a policy determination i mean doesn't need to be word for word to meaningfully interfere what's going on or is enough that you can go in and you can observe you can take notes or you can gather all this other information that's available again as a policy determination that the state court is made judge crabb matter i take it what is characterized as community they were cute value of openness which it said lies in the fact people not actually attending trials can have confidence that standards of fairness are being observed because of the availability of  were provided that and that's a separate issue that is an issue here isn't isn't really the same issue because their argument is there needs to be a comprehensive record meaning a record that  r indicate that the supreme court in our courts have already accepted the proposition that a transcript is is it important and essential to fulfill that function now was it was simply a why or why don't those cases simply confirm the notion that the minimum for a comprehensive  provided and secondly you know it also depends on one another information is available around those type of hearings you know not not just what it said but what other information and then we talk about the other information that's available here related to every arraignment that takes place so and again and that bringing it back to the to meaningfully interfering you know to be able to attend and observe is sufficient under the constitution now you know again this is a policy issue in fact appellate counsel in this case has filed an amethyst brief and this state supreme court rising out of the special master's recommendation asking the state supreme court to make these arrangements to be verbatim so that issue before the state supreme court right now and they can certainly decide to change you know a role one hundred and fifteen which talks about making verbatim recordings is a policy decision and they're in the best position to do so hence still having trouble understanding how you did declare that or courtrooms must be open but the transcripts of proceedings occurring there would be closed from what exists of the right of access extends only to those who can sweet squeeze through the door if you seem to be saying unless that no recording otherwise made available well i can say that the cases as we point out in our brief that the other courts of appeals i think the roughly five of the eight and the district courts have upheld rule fifty three and i understand obviously in federal courts the transcripts or at least audiotape cording these are made however again those  cases other than a couple of them don't even mention transcript i mean so it's just inferring that the court held there's no st amendment right to record because there's a transcript but they didn't talk about transcripts well perhaps it's d what would be the consequence more broadly than this case how many other i'm jurisdictions are there where there is no comprehensive reporting otherwise made available and there's a prohibition on any recording of it by a member of the public well st off i mean it has a statewide impact because as i mentioned the magisterial district courts as they operate outside of philadelphia are much different  argument the do have some arrangements and bail issues that aren't on the record but there is no verbatim record made so i think with even though this is limited to philadelphia as i mentioned it's also going to have an impact across pennsylvania it occurs in allegheny county as well really impacts across state which is why the state supreme court which is looking into arrangements and so the fia now is in the best position to determine what to do and again balancing all these i guess and i'm not privy to what's going on but i'm suggesting like for instance i know the institute for constitutional advocacy filed an amicus brief asking that the arrangements should be made verbatim and i believe the defenders association and the a c l u who represents the petitioner in that case has raised that issue certainly it's as i'm sure the court probably saw in judge cleveland's report is that that's a policy issue you know there's different cost benefit analysis  it's not before the supreme court i mean they took the case under king's bench jurisdiction so it's not as if like this case where it's a direct you know confrontation but the ar this because it could go away i mean sooner or later you play this game a might they might do this they might do that you get infested with mites and then then then we're waiting and we don't get the right result but so so you have never advocated that we wait you're just saying incidentally it's really a policy decision for either the legislature or in pennsylvania the supreme court to decide and to experiment on these matters and that that's why i bring it up and just just to make sure i'm clear i circle back to th question earlier i had asked you whether there was any case you can point us to where it was held to be consistent with the st amendment right of access for the mean it seems it means it seems that the might be a little kind of different people getting treated differently scenario going on here parties to the case get better treatment they get the option under subsection d to elect joe to make a record if they want but members of the public don't and so it strikes me that public access is not st class access it's something less than st class access and so i suppose you're going to say that no the th amendment gives a more direct right than the st amendment you have it but a lot of times when i read the case law there's a coupling between the th amendment in between the st amendment in courts aren't saying oh we can have disparate levels of access now maybe it makes sense for the six member to be a little more robust but you have any thoughts on kind of the fact that st class access isn't for the public in terms of the option to make reportings yes you are well i you know i think the st that you're doing these competing constitutional considerations here i mean certainly you know i think that the state courts and the federal courts have an affirmative constitutional duty to minimize prejudice and we you know we've talked about the potential prejudice in the break you know in addition to the rule one hundred and twelve dollars which allows recordings to be made really doesn't have you know it's more police officer's testimony or something along those lines for potential you know impeachment or cross examination purposes later on so i again i think that to be extend that when when you look at the federal cases right we will take the case and revise when we think counsel for truly excellent briefing and we're working with this morning