Brett and Nazim open up the listener mailbag to answer questions posed by listeners and update previous cases that have since been decided.  The topics this week include Holt v. Hobbs, smart phone technology, why DUI checkpoints are acceptable under the 4th amendment, and the possible scope of the Confrontation Clause decision.  Due to the general breadth of this episode, we split it into two, so the remaining topics will be covered next week. Same Breyer time, same Breyer Channel.

The thesis of this week's episode is that taxes are nothing to be trifled with.  First, Brett and Nazim discuss the many ways that citizens have failed trying to make income taxes unconstitutional.  Afterward, Brett and Nazim discuss Comptroller of Maryland v. Wynn, in which the Court is asked to determine if a State is required to credit taxes paid to other states under the Dormant Commerce Clause.  Finally, Brett's wife Jess comes on to confuse the issue entirely.

This week's episode covers Ohio v. Clark, which asks whether or not a teacher may testify on behalf of a three year old child who was the only witness to a child abuse case under the Confrontation Clause.  This presents a good example of how the law can complicate an objective view of a bad situation, or how a sensitive topic can otherwise deny a citizen's Constitutional rights.  Either way, Brett and Nazim get real awkward debating the issue somewhere around the 35 minuute mark, so get ready for that.

This week's episode discusses the legal issues surrounding the police in Ferguson, MS and Staton Island, NY.  The goal here was to take a strictly legal and objective overview of the issues in each case, specifically what a grand jury does, why you can't sue the government and what the Constitution says about police use of deadly force, without getting too deep into the political issues that made up most of the media coverage.  Let's call this one better late than never.