Overview Edit
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that:
"The . . . constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, has its source in that principle of the common law which finds expression in the maxim that 'every man's house is his castle.' English history discloses [that the] . . . constitutional provisions . . . had their origin 'in the . . . unwarrantable intrusion of executive agents into the houses . . . of individuals . . . .'"[1]
This right had a long history in English common law. Sometimes colloquially expressed as a mans house is his castle, it meant that one had a right to expect that ones home, possessions, and person were safe against arbitrary and forceful intrusion by the Kings agents. At the same time, it recognized that the lawful agents of the state can intrude on private property to execute or enforce the law, so long as they obey certain procedural rules that protect the subject of the search.
This protection was understood in 1787 to limit and regulate physical trespass, and the seizing of papers, effects, or "things." However, it gradually came to be seen as a protection of something more.[2] "[T]he principal object of the Fourth Amendment," the U.S. Supreme Court has explained, "is the protection of privacy rather than property.[3] In addition, "the Fourth Amendment protects people and not simply 'areas' against unreasonable searches and seizures."[4] Thus, in its seminal decision in Katz v. United States,[5] the Court held that police officers violated the Fourth Amendment when they conducted a warrantless search using a listening and recording device placed on the outside of a public phone booth to eavesdrop on the conversation of a suspect who had "'justifiably relied' upon . . . [the privacy of the] telephone booth."[6] The Court concluded that the Fourth Amendment protects both a person and that persons expectation of privacy from warrantless searches or seizures in places which are justifiably believed to be private.
The Amendment's operative text can be divided into two clauses. The first clause forbids the government from conducting any search or seizure that is "unreasonable." The second clause prohibits the government from issuing a warrant unless it is obtained based "upon probable cause," is "supported by Oath," and contains particularized descriptions of the "place to be searched" and what is "to be seized." Although "[t]here is nothing in the amendments text to suggest that a warrant is required to make a search or seizure reasonable,"[7] the U.S. Supreme Court has long since read these two clauses together, generally holding that a warrantless search or seizure is presumptively (if not per se) unreasonable.[8]
The critical triggering phrase of the fourth amendment is searches and seizures. If there is no search or seizure, then official behavior is not covered by the Fourth Amendment, and it need not be reasonable, based on probable cause, or carried out pursuant to a warrant. Although there may be statutory protections that require certain conduct, an individual does not have fourth amendment protections unless there is a search and seizure.
The U.S. Supreme Court has said that a search occurs where the Government infringes upon a persons reasonable expectation of privacy, consisting of both an actual, subjective expectation of privacy as well as an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy, which requires both that an individual manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in the searched object and that society is willing to recognize that expectation as reasonable.[9] Thus, the Fourth Amendment ultimately limits the governments ability to conduct a range of activities, such as physical searches of homes or offices and listening to phone conversations. As a general rule, the Fourth Amendment requires the government to demonstrate probable cause and obtain a warrant (unless a recognized warrant exception applies) before conducting a search.[10]
A seizure of a person occurs when a government official makes an individual reasonably believe that he or she is not at liberty to ignore the governments presence in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident.
The secondary triggering phrase of the fourth amendment is unreasonable. Even if official conduct is regarded as a search or seizure, there is no invasion of fourth amendment protections if the conduct is reasonable. Determination of reasonableness depends on the judicial balancing of the individual interest, generally regarded as a privacy interest, against the governmental interest, including law and order, national security, internal security, and the proper administration of the laws. Reasonableness generally entails a predicate of probable cause and, with many exceptions, the issuance of a warrant.
The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourth Amendment to include a presumptive warrant requirement on all searches and seizures conducted by the government, and has ruled that any violations of this standard will result in the suppression of any information derived therefrom.
Generally, the same warrant rules apply when preparing and executing a search warrant for digital evidence as in other investigations. Law enforcement should consider the following when preparing and executing a search warrant for digital evidence:
The U.S. Supreme Court, however, has also recognized situations that render the obtainment of a warrant impractical or against the publics interest, and has accordingly crafted various exceptions to the warrant and probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment.
While the right against unreasonable searches and seizures was originally applied only to tangible things, Supreme Court jurisprudence eventually expanded the contours of the Fourth Amendment to cover intangible items such as conversations. However, the extent to which the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement applies to the governments collection of information for intelligence gathering and other purposes unrelated to criminal investigations is unclear.
As communications technology has advanced, the technology for intrusion into private conversations has kept pace, as have government efforts to exploit such technology for law enforcement and intelligence purposes. At the same time, the Supreme Court has expanded its interpretation of the scope of the Fourth Amendment with respect to such techniques, and Congress has legislated both to protect privacy and to enable the government to pursue its legitimate interests in enforcing the law and gathering foreign intelligence information. Yet the precise boundaries of what the Constitution allows, as well as what it requires, are not fully demarcated, and the relevant statutes are not entirely free from ambiguity.
Although the surveillance of wire or oral communications for criminal law enforcement purposes was held to be subject to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment in 1967,[11] neither the Supreme Court nor Congress sought to regulate the use of such surveillance for national security purposes at that time. Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (as originally enacted), contained an exception that stated:
Several years later, the Supreme Court invalidated warrantless electronic surveillance of domestic organizations for national security purposes, but indicated that its conclusion might differ if the electronic surveillance targeted foreign powers or their agents.[13] A lower court has since upheld the statutory scheme governing the gathering of foreign intelligence information against a Fourth Amendment challenge, despite an assumption that orders issued pursuant to the statute might not constitute warrants for Fourth Amendment purposes.[14] The Supreme Court has not yet directly addressed the issue. However, even if the warrant requirement was found not to apply to searches for foreign intelligence or national security purposes, such searches would presumably be subject to the general Fourth Amendment reasonableness test.[15]
There are several well-recognized exceptions to securing a warrant. Although the following is not an exhaustive list, the examples provide an idea of how the common exceptions apply to the search and seizure of digital evidence.
Consent. Consent is a valuable tool for an investigator. It can come from many sources, including a log-in banner, terms-of-use agreement, or company policy. Some considerations include:
Exigent circumstances. To prevent the destruction of evidence, law enforcement can seize an electronic storage device. In certain cases in which there is an immediate danger of losing data, law enforcement may perform a limited search to preserve the data in its current state. Once the exigent circumstances end, so does the exception.
Search incident to arrest. The need to protect the safety of law enforcement or to preserve evidence can justify a full search of an arrestee and a limited search of the arrest scene. This search incident to arrest can include a search of an electronic storage device, such as a cell phone or pager, held by the subject.
Inventory search. The inventory search exception is intended to protect the property of a person in custody and guard against claims of damage or loss. This exception is untested in the courts, so it is uncertain whether the inventory search exception will allow law enforcement to access digital evidence without a warrant.
Plain view doctrine. The plain view doctrine may apply in some instances to the search for and seizure of digital evidence. For plain view to apply, law enforcement must legitimately be in the position to observe evidence, the incriminating character of which must be immediately apparent. Law enforcement officials should exercise caution when relying on the plain view doctrine in connection with digital media, as rules concerning the application of the doctrine vary among jurisdictions.
In contrast with its rulings on surveillance, the Supreme Court has not historically applied the protections of the Fourth Amendment to documents held by third parties. In 1976, it held that financial records in the possession of third parties could be obtained by the government without a warrant.[16] Later, it likewise held that the installation and use of a pen register a device used to capture telephone numbers dialed does not constitute a Fourth Amendment search.[17] The reasoning was that individuals have a lesser expectation of privacy with regard to information held by third parties.
In response to the Supreme Courts rulings regarding the Fourth Amendments non-application to documents held by third parties, Congress enacted the Right to Financial Privacy Act (RFPA)[18] to constrain government authorities access to individuals financial records. Although these privacy protections are subject to a foreign intelligence exception,[19] government authorities were not authorized to compel financial institutions to secretly turn over financial records until 1986.[20] That year, the FBI was also given authority, in the form of FBI-issued national security letters, to access customer records held by telephone companies and other communications service providers in specified instances justified by a national security rationale.[21] Two additional national security letter authorities were enacted in the mid-1990s. The first provided access to credit and financial records of federal employees with security clearances.[22] The second gave the FBI access to credit agency records in order to facilitate the identification of financial institutions utilized by the target of an investigation.[23]
At its broadest, a Fourth Amendment analysis is a two-stage inquiry. First, was the action of a government officer toward a person or thing sufficiently intrusive to constitute a search or seizure?[24] Second, if a search or seizure did occur, was the intrusion reasonable in light of the circumstances? The reasonableness of a particular government action is judged by balancing the governmental interest which allegedly justifies the official intrusion against a persons legitimate expectations of privacy. Courts must consider the scope of the particular intrusion, the manner in which it is conducted, the justification for initiating it, and the place in which it is conducted.
If a court determines that a government intrusion constitutes a search or seizure that was not reasonable in light of the relative weights of the governments interest and a persons constitutionally protected privacy interests, it will conclude that a Fourth Amendment violation has occurred. A violation of the Fourth Amendment may, as a general rule, result in the suppression of any information derived therefrom in a judicial proceeding.
In most circumstances, government action is implicated when a government official conducts a search. Generally speaking, the Fourth Amendments limitations do not apply to searches by private parties unless those searches are conducted at the direction of the government. Private parties who independently acquire evidence of a crime may turn it over to law enforcement.[25]
For example, if an employee discovers contraband files on a computer that is being repaired in a shop, the employees subsequent release of information to law enforcement does not violate the Fourth Amendment. In such a case, law enforcement may examine anything that the employee observed.
The Fourth Amendment applies when the searched party has an actual expectation of privacy in the place to be searched or thing to be seized, and then only if it is an expectation that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.[26]
The subjective part of the test focuses attention on the means the individual employs to protect his or her privacy, e.g., closing the door of a phone booth or closing curtains. Additionally, the assumption of risk that the individual appears to take is considered in determining the individuals actual expectation of privacy. Under assumption of risk, an individual is presumed to assume the risk that another party to a conversation or activity may consent to a search. This assumption of risk prevails even if the consenting party is an informer or undercover agent.[28]
The objective part of the test looks to what society regards as a reasonable expectation of privacy. Yet, it requires this without specifying an objective referent. Is society todays opinion polls, longstanding norms and traditions, a reasonable person, or the knowledge that people have in common? The result of the objective part of the test is that the Court has implicitly constructed a continuum of circumstances under which society would regard an individual as having a reasonable expectation of privacy. The continuum ranges from public places (open fields, in plain view, public highway), in which there is no objective expectation of privacy except in unusual circumstances, to the inside of ones home with the windows and curtains shut and the door bolted, in which there is an objective expectation of privacy. The objective expectation of privacy along the continuum (shopping centers, motels, offices, automobiles, and yards) depends on judicial interpretation. The Court has modified the objective element, referring to it as a legitimate expectation of privacy."
Some courts treat a computer as a closed container for Fourth Amendment purposes. In some jurisdictions, looking at a computers subdirectories and files is akin to opening a closed container.
The second important component of Katz v. United States is the holding that the fourth amendment protects people, not places. The question of what protection the fourth amendment offers people remains unanswered, and defining the scope of such protection still necessitates reference to places. Moreover, the distinction between people and places has raised the question of whether the fourth amendment still protects property interests, or whether it now protects only more personal interests. The issue of the protection afforded people as distinct from that afforded places has become more significant with the growth of third-party recordkeepers, e.g., banks. The thrust of the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Katz seemed to represent an expansion, not a replacement, of the existing fourth amendment protections:
It has been argued that, based on Katz, analysis of privacy interests should replace the more traditional property analysis when the Government uses nonphysical methods of search and where relevant privacy interests do not have physical characteristics. The property aspect is viewed as still important because it gives specificity and concreteness to fourth amendment analysis. Yet, in some rulings the U.S. Supreme Court has treated privacy as the only interest protected by the fourth amendment.
This implies a further narrowing of fourth amendment protection, both because property interests are not considered and because of the problems of defining privacy. In evaluating the appropriateness of the use of electronic surveillance technologies by Government officials, the courts have worked within the framework established by Katz. By analogy to traditional surveillance devices, the courts have attempted to determine whether or not individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy. This becomes more difficult as surveillance devices become more technologically sophisticated because the analogy is often more remote and hence less convincing. The courts have generally continued to consider the place in which a surveillance device is located or the place that a device is monitoring. The courts generally have adopted the more expansive interpretation of Katz and have not abandoned higher levels of protection for certain places, e.g., homes and yards.
Yet, the Katz framework has not offered the courts sufficient policy guidance to deal with the range and uses of new surveillance technologies. "Reasonable expectation of privacy" is an inherently nebulous phrase and, despite decades of judicial application, predicting its meaning in a new context is difficult. Determining whether a place is sufficiently private to offer protection against official surveillance is more and more difficult as the public sphere of activities encroaches on what was once deemed private.
The Fourth Amendment search and seizure provision protects a right of privacy by requiring warrants before government may invade one's internal space or by requiring that warrantless invasions be reasonable. However, "the Fourth Amendment cannot be translated into a general constitutional right to privacy. That Amendment protects individual privacy against certain kinds of governmental intrusion, but its protections go further, and often have nothing to do with privacy at all."[30]
Read the original:
Fourth Amendment | The IT Law Wiki | FANDOM powered by Wikia
- Quinn: Supreme Court should clarify Fourth Amendment rights in the digital age [Last Updated On: April 26th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 26th, 2014]
- Fourth amendment | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia ... [Last Updated On: April 26th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 26th, 2014]
- The Fourth Amendment is destroyed by the Roberts led Supreme Court. - Video [Last Updated On: April 26th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 26th, 2014]
- Protections for e-data clear Senate committee [Last Updated On: April 27th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 27th, 2014]
- Weighing The Risks Of Warrantless Phone Searches During Arrests [Last Updated On: April 29th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 29th, 2014]
- Court may let cops search smartphones [Last Updated On: April 29th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 29th, 2014]
- Supreme Court to hear case on police searches of cellphones [Last Updated On: April 29th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 29th, 2014]
- Fourth Amendment in the digital age: Supreme Court to decide if police can search cellphones without a warrant [Last Updated On: April 30th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 30th, 2014]
- What Scalia knows about illegal searches [Last Updated On: April 30th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 30th, 2014]
- Should police be allowed to search your smartphone - Video [Last Updated On: April 30th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 30th, 2014]
- The Shaky Legal Foundation of NSA Surveillance on Americans [Last Updated On: May 1st, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 1st, 2014]
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court rules police don't need warrants to search cars [Last Updated On: May 3rd, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 3rd, 2014]
- Local police: Updated vehicle-search law still requires probable cause [Last Updated On: May 3rd, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 3rd, 2014]
- Liberal Supreme Court Justice Comes To The Defense Of Scalia [Last Updated On: May 3rd, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 3rd, 2014]
- Smartphones and the Fourth Amendment - Video [Last Updated On: May 4th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 4th, 2014]
- Fourth Amendment Defined & Explained - Law [Last Updated On: May 6th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 6th, 2014]
- I-Team: Do police seek search warrant friendly judges? [Last Updated On: May 8th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 8th, 2014]
- Is Big Brother Listening? Applying the Fourth Amendment in an Electronic Age - Video [Last Updated On: May 9th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 9th, 2014]
- Magistrate waxes poetic while rejecting Gmail search request [Last Updated On: May 10th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 10th, 2014]
- The Fourth Amendment - Video [Last Updated On: May 10th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 10th, 2014]
- License reader lawsuit can be heard, appeals court rules [Last Updated On: May 15th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 15th, 2014]
- Seize the Rojo - Video [Last Updated On: May 16th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 16th, 2014]
- NSA Spying Has a Disproportionate Effect on Immigrants [Last Updated On: May 16th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 16th, 2014]
- Motorists sue Aurora, police in 2012 traffic stop after bank robbery [Last Updated On: May 18th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 18th, 2014]
- Judge Says NSA Phone Surveillance Likely Unconstitutional - Video [Last Updated On: May 21st, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 21st, 2014]
- New York Attorney Heath D. Harte Releases a Statement on Fourth Amendment Rights [Last Updated On: May 22nd, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 22nd, 2014]
- The Fourth Amendment Rights - Video [Last Updated On: May 23rd, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 23rd, 2014]
- Bangor Area School District teachers vote no to random drug [Last Updated On: May 24th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 24th, 2014]
- I Don't Care About The Contitution, Take Your Fourth Amendment And Shove It The Hills Hotel - Video [Last Updated On: May 27th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 27th, 2014]
- Lonestar1776 at Illegal Checkpoint 80 Miles Inside Border - Standing UP & Pushing Back! pt 2/2 - Video [Last Updated On: August 31st, 2014] [Originally Added On: August 31st, 2014]
- Suit charges Daytona Beach's rental inspection program violates civil rights [Last Updated On: September 3rd, 2014] [Originally Added On: September 3rd, 2014]
- 4th Amendment - Laws.com [Last Updated On: September 4th, 2014] [Originally Added On: September 4th, 2014]
- YOU CAN ARREST ME NOW (cops refuse, steal phone) - Video [Last Updated On: September 7th, 2014] [Originally Added On: September 7th, 2014]
- The Feds Explain How They Seized The Silk Road Servers [Last Updated On: September 8th, 2014] [Originally Added On: September 8th, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: Does obtaining leaked data from a misconfigured website violate the CFAA? [Last Updated On: September 9th, 2014] [Originally Added On: September 9th, 2014]
- Defence asks judge in NYC to toss out bulk of evidence in Silk Road case as illegally obtained [Last Updated On: September 10th, 2014] [Originally Added On: September 10th, 2014]
- Family of a mentally ill woman files lawsuit against San Mateo Co. after deadly shooting [Last Updated On: September 10th, 2014] [Originally Added On: September 10th, 2014]
- Minnesota Supreme Court upholds airport drug case decision [Last Updated On: September 12th, 2014] [Originally Added On: September 12th, 2014]
- Law Talk - Obamacare Rollout; Fourth Amendment, NSA Spying Stop & Frisk DUI Check Points lta041 - Video [Last Updated On: September 12th, 2014] [Originally Added On: September 12th, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: The posse comitatus case and changing views of the exclusionary rule [Last Updated On: September 15th, 2014] [Originally Added On: September 15th, 2014]
- Guest: Why the privacy of a public employees cellphone matters [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2014] [Originally Added On: September 16th, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: Apples dangerous game [Last Updated On: September 19th, 2014] [Originally Added On: September 19th, 2014]
- Judge expounds on privacy rights [Last Updated On: September 20th, 2014] [Originally Added On: September 20th, 2014]
- Great privacy essay: Fourth Amendment Doctrine in the Era of Total Surveillance [Last Updated On: September 20th, 2014] [Originally Added On: September 20th, 2014]
- The Fourth Amendment By Maison Erdman - Video [Last Updated On: September 20th, 2014] [Originally Added On: September 20th, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: When administrative inspections of businesses turn into massive armed police raids [Last Updated On: September 22nd, 2014] [Originally Added On: September 22nd, 2014]
- The chilling loophole that lets police stop, question and search you for no good reason [Last Updated On: September 23rd, 2014] [Originally Added On: September 23rd, 2014]
- Pet Owners Look to Muzzle Police Who Shoot Dogs [Last Updated On: September 27th, 2014] [Originally Added On: September 27th, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: A few thoughts on Heien v. North Carolina [Last Updated On: September 29th, 2014] [Originally Added On: September 29th, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: Third Circuit on the mosaic theory and Smith v. Maryland [Last Updated On: October 1st, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 1st, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: Third Circuit gives narrow reading to exclusionary rule [Last Updated On: October 2nd, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 2nd, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: Supreme Court takes case on duration of traffic stops [Last Updated On: October 3rd, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 3rd, 2014]
- Search & Seizure, Racial Bias: The American Law Journal on the Philadelphia CNN-News Affiliate WFMZ Monday, October 6 ... [Last Updated On: October 3rd, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 3rd, 2014]
- Argument preview: How many brake lights need to be working on your car? [Last Updated On: October 3rd, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 3rd, 2014]
- The 'Barney Fife Loophole' to the Fourth Amendment [Last Updated On: October 3rd, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 3rd, 2014]
- Search & Seizure: A New Fourth Amendment for a New Generation? - Promo - Video [Last Updated On: October 4th, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 4th, 2014]
- Ap Government Fourth Amendment Project - Video [Last Updated On: October 4th, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 4th, 2014]
- Lubbock Liberty Workshop With Arnold Loewy On The Fourth Amendment - Video [Last Updated On: October 5th, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 5th, 2014]
- Feds Hacked Silk Road Without A Warrant? Perfectly Legal, Prosecutors Argue [Last Updated On: October 7th, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 7th, 2014]
- Supreme Court Starts Term with Fourth Amendment Case [Last Updated On: October 7th, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 7th, 2014]
- Argument analysis: A simple answer to a deceptively simple Fourth Amendment question? [Last Updated On: October 9th, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 9th, 2014]
- Feds Say That Even If FBI Hacked The Silk Road, Ulbricht's Rights Weren't Violated [Last Updated On: October 9th, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 9th, 2014]
- Mass Collection of U.S. Phone Records Violates the Fourth Amendment - Video [Last Updated On: October 9th, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 9th, 2014]
- Leggett sides with civil liberties supporters [Last Updated On: October 10th, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 10th, 2014]
- Search & Seizure / Car Stops: A 'New' Fourth Amendment for a New Generation? - Video [Last Updated On: October 10th, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 10th, 2014]
- The Fourth Amendment- The Maininator Period 4 - Video [Last Updated On: October 10th, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 10th, 2014]
- Judge nukes Ulbricht's complaint about WARRANTLESS FBI Silk Road server raid [Last Updated On: October 11th, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 11th, 2014]
- Montgomery County will not hold immigrants without probable cause -- Gazette.Net [Last Updated On: October 13th, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 13th, 2014]
- Debate: Does Mass Phone Data Collection Violate The 4th Amendment? [Last Updated On: October 14th, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 14th, 2014]
- Does the mass collection of phone records violate the Fourth Amendment? [Last Updated On: October 19th, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 19th, 2014]
- When Can the Police Search Your Phone and Computer? [Last Updated On: October 21st, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 21st, 2014]
- Supreme Court to decide if cops can access hotel registries without warrants [Last Updated On: October 22nd, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 22nd, 2014]
- Third Circuit Allows Evidence from Warrantless GPS Device [Last Updated On: October 22nd, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 22nd, 2014]
- US court rules in favor of providing officials access to entire email account [Last Updated On: October 24th, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 24th, 2014]
- EL MONTE POLICE OFFICER VIOLATES ARMY VETERAN'S FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHT - Video [Last Updated On: October 25th, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 25th, 2014]
- FBI demands new powers to hack into computers and carry out surveillance [Last Updated On: October 30th, 2014] [Originally Added On: October 30th, 2014]
- Fourth Amendment (United States Constitution ... [Last Updated On: November 4th, 2014] [Originally Added On: November 4th, 2014]
- Fourth Amendment - Video [Last Updated On: November 4th, 2014] [Originally Added On: November 4th, 2014]
- Call Yourself a Hacker and Lose Fourth Amendment Rights - Video [Last Updated On: November 5th, 2014] [Originally Added On: November 5th, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: Magistrate issues arrest warrants for 17 years but is new to probable cause [Last Updated On: November 7th, 2014] [Originally Added On: November 7th, 2014]