tagged w/ 4th Amendment
-
In the name of "fighting terrorism," President Obama wants to give the FBI more powers to monitor Internet activities without a judge's approval.
You may think this wouldn't apply to you because you're not a terrorist. You would be wrong. It could apply to anyone and anything that the FBI deems "related" to a terrorism investigation. FBI agents don't even have to go before a court to explain themselves. The FBI alone gets to decide.
Obama wants this new power even though the FBI has abused the powers it already has!
Do you want Big Brother knowing the people you email or the sites you visit?
________
Obama is quickly passing Bush on the assault against our civil liberties. The NSA has already continued its illegal spying and now Obama wants to allow the FBI to do the same. Sad.In the name of "fighting terrorism," President Obama wants to give the FBI... more
-
-
As long as the public remains largely ignorant about 4th Amendment rights, police will continue to rely on coercive tactics that treat people as guilty until proven innocent:
Dallas police began a new initiative today to combat drugs. Citywide, officers are headed to suspected drug houses to "knock and talk" with the occupants.
The technique involves knocking on the door of a suspected drug house and trying to talk the people inside into inviting officers in to search without a warrant. Police can enter without a search warrant if they see illegal activity happening.
Dallas police have long used the technique, but its use will be widened during the next few months to include more officers and more areas within the city. [Dallas Morning News]
If this sounds to anyone like a program that only affects drug offenders, it's not. Police tactics like these are always framed as an effort to "get weapons and drugs off the street," but they are so much more than that. By definition, the people targeted under such policies are innocent citizens against whom police have no actionable evidence of criminal activity. After all, when police have credible facts indicating that drug crimes are taking place at a specific location, they may obtain a search warrant and enter lawfully.
The "knock and talk" approach is used exclusively to enter private residences in the absence of probable cause. Vague and unfounded suspicions, or even prejudices, could ultimately determine which locations are singled out for investigation. In the process, innocent people living in high-crime neighborhoods are placed at great risk of arrest in the event that a guest, neighbor or former tenant left something illegal on their property.
As misguided as these tactics are, there is one simple option available to concerned citizens who don't want police digging through their drawers: just don’t let them in. Unless you give them permission to enter, police need a warrant to search your home. You may simply decline the search and tell the officers that you'll gladly cooperate if they return with a warrant. If that makes you uncomfortable, another option is not to answer the door at all, which also reduces the likelihood of police claiming that they saw or smelled something illegal when you opened the door for them.
The bottom line is that invasive "knock and talk" programs don't work if everyone knows their rights, which is why the D.C. police simply canceled theirs after we started doing this
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle_blog/2010/feb/18/dallas_police_plan_widespread_waAs long as the public remains largely ignorant about 4th Amendment rights, police will... more
-
-
This can't possibly be the official position of the Obama Administration. A Constitutional scholar should know better...
"...Meanwhile, modern cellular communications networks have enabled police to track suspects through back-end APIs, showing real time Global Positioning System (GPS) data on demand and over the Internet. Sprint, the nation's third largest carrier, said recently that it has received over 8 million tracking requests from law enforcement officials. The company employs a team of 110 people to handle law enforcement requests on its roughly 47 million customers.
Sprint spokesman Matt Sullivan noted after the revelations that "every wireless carrier has a team and a system' through which police can access GPS data."
"An individual has no Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interest in business records, such as cell-site usage information, that are kept, maintained and used by a cell phone company," Obama administration attorney Eckenwiler argued in his legal brief."
http://rawstory.com/2010/02/obama-attorneys-argue-warrantless-cell-phone-tracking/This can't possibly be the official position of the Obama Administration. A... more
-
-
Even though police are tapping into the locations of mobile phones thousands of times a year, the legal ground rules remain unclear, and federal privacy laws written a generation ago are ambiguous at best. On Friday, the first federal appeals court to consider the topic will hear oral arguments (PDF) in a case that could establish new standards for locating wireless devices
Goodbye 4th Amendment...For the Full Story On the Govenrment Tracking Us and our Cell Phones...http://ctpatriot1970.wordpress.com/2010/02/11/no-right-to-privacy-feds-to-track-you-and-your-cell-phones-a-must-read/
In that case, the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no “reasonable expectation of privacy” in their–or at least their cell phones’–whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that “a customer’s Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records” that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.Even though police are tapping into the locations of mobile phones thousands of times... more
-
-
5 Years ago when federal investigators seized digital drug test records under a warrant for 10 specific names, they ended up with records showing positive drug results for 104 players. Since most of the records seized were not called for under the warrant, legal action ensued that has lead to new digital search-and-seizure guidelines.5 Years ago when federal investigators seized digital drug test records under a... more
-
-
hcice
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
In a stunning 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court today reversed its longstanding bright-line rule which had permitted warrantless car searches after an arrest, even when there was no concern for officer safety or the preservation of evidence. The case is Arizona v Gant.
Writing for the majority in this important decision, Justice Stevens held that the police may only search the passenger compartment of a vehicle, pursuant to the arrest of a recent occupant, if it is reasonable to believe that the arrested person might access the car while it’s being searched, or that the car contains evidence of the crime for which that person was arrested.
Interestingly, the votes were contrary to common stereotype. The majority, which limited police powers, included the two most right-wing justices in the popular mind, Scalia and Thomas. The minority, which would have expanded police powers, included two fairly liberal justices, Kennedy and Breyer.In a stunning 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court today reversed its longstanding... more
-
-
And it's conservatives who say that judges shouldn't legislate from the bench... If the Supreme Court starts to rule contrary the document it's supposed to protect, where does that leave us as a constitutionally-limited federal democratic republic?
The 4th Amendment is as follows:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Where in there does it say that "negligence" is exempt? This is a very slippery slope...
Who exactly decides whether or not "systemic errors or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements occurred?
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
"The U.S. Supreme Court has decided, in a 5-4 vote, that police can use evidence obtained in searches resulting from erroneous information in databases, as long as the error was a result of negligence -- not "systemic errors or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements."
In Herring v. United States, knocks down an argument that evidence obtained during illegal searches and arrests should be thrown out because it violates the Fourth Amendment. The majority ruled that, as long as the arrest wasn't reckless or deliberate, related evidence could be used.
Bennie Dean Herring was arrested while trying to retrieve something from his truck, which an Alabama sheriff had impounded. Members of the Coffee County Sheriff's Department mistakenly believed there was a warrant out for Herring and arrested him. During the arrest, they found that Herring possessed an illegal gun and methamphetamine.
Herring tried to fight gun and drug possession charges, saying the gun and drugs were found during an arrest that violates the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment requires law enforcement to have warrants for arrests and probable cause for search and seizure.
The Supreme Court decision, rejecting Herring's argument, states that the arrest was not in deliberate violation of Herring's rights."And it's conservatives who say that judges shouldn't legislate from the... more
-
-
"Prohibits any person acting under U.S. authority, derived from a sovereign's power to search at its border, from searching the electronic contents of a laptop computer or other similar device of a person entering the United States. Allows searches based on lawful authority other than a sovereign's power to search at its border. Defines "laptop computer or other similar device" to include any electronic device normally used for electronic mail or messaging or for storing electronic data.""Prohibits any person acting under U.S. authority, derived from a... more
-
-
Don't be fool by the new FISA wiretapping bill. It's still pretty much does the same thing as the old bill, violate the 4th amendment.Don't be fool by the new FISA wiretapping bill. It's still pretty much does... more
-
