Category Archives: Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution articulates the right of Americans sources of private informational documents to be secure "against unreasonable searches and seizures." We need this principle to address threats to cloud computing.

Alena Root, Thinkstock

Enlarge photo

SALT LAKE CITY As a medium of expression that blossomed in popular consciousness in the late 1990s, the Internet is beginning to reach its adolescent years.

We've evolved from static Web pages to social networking to "cloud computing," which means that personal documents aren't stored on our computers and smartphones but on servers throughout the world.

And yet citizens' security in their digital possessions has never been more threatened. Fortunately, there are two bills one co-sponsored by Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, the other co-sponsored by Utah Sen. Mike Lee that go a long way to restoring constitutional protections for Internet information.

It's important at the outset to dispense the shibboleth that the Internet changes everything. What the Internet needs is a strong dose of 18th century legal wisdom, not words about "freedom of expression in the 21st century," to quote the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission during last Thursday's vote by the agency on network neutrality.

The Constitution says that we have the right to be secure in our "persons, houses, papers and effects." We have the right to speak free from regulation by the government. There are some who say that the Internet has rewritten the laws of supply and demand, or changed common decency and morality, or altered the possibility of being free from police surveillance. They are mistaken.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution articulates the right of Americans sources of private informational documents to be secure "against unreasonable searches and seizures." This doesn't prevent the government or the police from obtaining information upon probable cause or reasonable suspicion; it simply bars the issuance of general warrants.

On Feb. 4, a bipartisan group of senators and representatives introduced the Electronic Communications Privacy Amendments Act of 2015. The bill we are introducing today protects Americans digital privacy in their emails, and all the other files and photographs they store in the cloud," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, who has long been seeking to update this law that first passed in 1986.

The rest is here:
Drew Clark: Threats to cloud computing require a solution from the 18th century

The Ferguson Police Department routinely violated the constitutional rights of the local African-American population in the Missouri city for years, the Department of Justice has found in a searing report.

The investigation, launched after the August shooting of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager, found that the department violated the Fourth Amendment in instances such as making traffic stops without reasonable suspicion and making arrests without probable cause.

The report provides direct evidence of racial bias among police officers and court workers, and details a criminal justice system that through the issuance of petty citations for infractions such as walking in the middle of the street, prioritizes generating revenue from fines over public safety.

The practice hits poor people especially hard, sometimes leading to jail time when they can't pay, the report says, and has contributed to a cynicism about the police on the part of citizens.

The official release of the report could come as early as Wednesday. The details were provided to Fox News on Tuesday by law enforcement officials familiar with the department's findings.

The Justice Department alleges that the discrimination was triggered at least partly by racial bias and stereotypes about African-Americans, a violation of the 14th Amendment. The report details a November 2008 email on an official Ferguson municipal account which joked that President Obama would not be president for long because what black man holds a steady job for four years?

From 2012 to 2014, the report found, African-Americans comprised 85 percent of people pulled over for a traffic stop; 90 percent of those given citations; and 93 percent of arrests.

Also, African-American drivers were more than twice as likely to be searched during a traffic stop than white drivers, but that those black drivers were 26 percent less likely to be found to be holding contraband.

The report also accuses the Ferguson police of using unreasonable force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and that 88 percent of those cases involved African-Americans.

Overall, blacks make up 67 percent of Ferguson's population.

More here:
Officials: DOJ report finds racial bias in Ferguson police

The Ferguson Police Department routinely violated the constitutional rights of the local African-American population in the Missouri city for years, the Department of Justice has found in a searing report.

The investigation, launched after the August shooting of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager, found that the department violated the Fourth Amendment in instances such as making traffic stops without reasonable suspicion and making arrests without probable cause.

The report provides direct evidence of racial bias among police officers and court workers, and details a criminal justice system that through the issuance of petty citations for infractions such as walking in the middle of the street, prioritizes generating revenue from fines over public safety.

The practice hits poor people especially hard, sometimes leading to jail time when they can't pay, the report says, and has contributed to a cynicism about the police on the part of citizens.

The official release of the report could come as early as Wednesday. The details were provided to Fox News on Tuesday by law enforcement officials familiar with the department's findings.

The Justice Department alleges that the discrimination was triggered at least partly by racial bias and stereotypes about African-Americans, a violation of the 14th Amendment. The report details a November 2008 email on an official Ferguson municipal account which joked that President Obama would not be president for long because what black man holds a steady job for four years?

From 2012 to 2014, the report found, African-Americans comprised 85 percent of people pulled over for a traffic stop; 90 percent of those given citations; and 93 percent of arrests.

Also, African-American drivers were more than twice as likely to be searched during a traffic stop than white drivers, but that those black drivers were 26 percent less likely to be found to be holding contraband.

The report also accuses the Ferguson police of using unreasonable force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and that 88 percent of those cases involved African-Americans.

Overall, blacks make up 67 percent of Ferguson's population.

Read more from the original source:
DOJ report says Ferguson PD routinely violated rights of African-Americans

San Francisco, CA - infoZine - EFF is asking the Supreme Court to hear arguments in Raynor v. State of Maryland, a case that examines whether police should be allowed to collect and analyze "inadvertently shed" DNA without a warrant or consent, such as swabbing cells from a drinking glass or a chair. EFF argues that genetic material contains a vast amount of personal information that should receive the full protection of the Constitution against unreasonable searches and seizures.

"As human beings, we shed hundreds of thousands of skin and hair cells daily, with each cell containing information about who we are, where we come from, and who we will be," EFF Senior Staff Attorney Jennifer Lynch said. "The court must recognize that allowing police the limitless ability to collect and search genetic material will usher in a future where DNA may be collected from any person at any time, entered into and checked against DNA databases, and used to conduct pervasive surveillance."

The sophistication and speed of DNA analysis technology is advancing exponentially as the costs of the technology drop. These advances, EFF argues, raise significant questions for privacy and civil liberties. DNA can reveal sensitive personal health information and can allow police to identify a person's relatives, turning family members into inadvertent "genetic informants" on each other. Some researchers have also postulated that DNA can determine race, sexual orientation, intelligence, and even political predispositions.

"Law enforcement should not be able to amass giant databases of genetic material they find lying around," EFF Senior Staff Attorney Hanni Fakhoury said. "The Supreme Court should review this case and consider it within the context of emerging technologies that could significantly affect the privacy rights of every American."

Read more here:
The Fourth Amendment Covers DNA Collection

Criminal Procedure tutorial: Warrants - Part I | quimbee.com
A brief excerpt from part one of Quimbee #39;s tutorial video on the kinds of government intrusions upon persons and property that will invoke the protections of the Fourth Amendment. Watch more...

By: Quimbee.com

Link:
Criminal Procedure tutorial: Warrants - Part I | quimbee.com - Video

Fourth Amendment Video Project
Mr. Tupka period 7.

By: Kyle Cohen

Visit link:
Fourth Amendment Video Project - Video

Criminal Procedure tutorial: Derivative Evidence and the Fourth Amendment | quimbee.com
A brief excerpt from Quimbee #39;s tutorial video on the rules governing when police interrogation may resume after Miranda rights have been effectively invoked....

By: Quimbee.com

Read more here:
Criminal Procedure tutorial: Derivative Evidence and the Fourth Amendment | quimbee.com - Video

Criminal Procedure tutorial: Introduction to the Fourth Amendment | quimbee.com
A brief excerpt from Quimbee #39;s tutorial video on the structure and operation of the Fourth Amendment. Watch more at https://www.quimbee.com/courses/criminal-...

By: Quimbee.com

Go here to read the rest:
Criminal Procedure tutorial: Introduction to the Fourth Amendment | quimbee.com - Video

The first case argued Tuesday morning, City of Los Angeles v. Patel, was about whether a Los Angeles ordinance that requires motel operators to allow the police to examine hotel guest registers, without seeking a warrant first, is constitutional. The en banc Ninth Circuit ruled that is is not, because the ordinance lacks an essential procedural safeguard pre-compliance judicial review. Prior to argument, many observers thought this meant that some judicial administrative warrant process was required. But now, after reviewing the argument transcript, confusion regarding exactly what the plaintiffs are seeking, as expressed by more than one Justice, may lead to reversal and remand rather than a substantive Fourth Amendment ruling.

Background

Recall from the preview that a group of motel owners sued Los Angeles, seeking to invalidate a municipal ordinance that requires them to make information about guests that they are required by law to record, available to any [LAPD] officer for inspection at a time and in a manner that minimizes any interference with the operation of the business. But no trial or evidentiary hearing was ever held; instead, the parties stipulated to a few facts and then agreed that the sole issue remaining was a facial constitutional challenge to the ordinance.

One stipulation was that, under the law in question, the motel operators have been subject and continue to be subject to searches and seizures of their motel registration records by the [LAPD] without consent or warrant. The Ninth Circuit ultimately ruled that this without a warrant stipulation rendered the law unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.

In its petition for certiorari, Los Angeles presented what amounts to three questions: (1) whether facial challenges to ordinances and statutes are ever permissible under the Fourth Amendment; (2) whether a hotel has an expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment in a hotel guest registry; and, if so, (3) whether the ordinance is unconstitutional because it does not require a warrant or other pre-compliance judicial review. Whether the Court should answer all of these questions, or whether the first one is instead dispositive, seemed to be a primary focus of oral argument yesterday.

Tuesdays oral argument and expectations of privacy

Observers, including this observer, sometimes forget how much close attention the Justices pay to the questions presented. At Tuesdays argument, Joshua Rosenkranz (arguing on behalf of the city) went immediately to the third question that is, the substantive constitutionality of the ordinance in question. The parties (and the Ninth Circuit) appeared to consider the second question to be moot, because they agreed by the time of argument that motel operators do have some limited expectation of privacy in their registers. But Justice Anthony Kennedy appeared to still be concerned: If a member of this Court sits down to write the opinion, does he or she have to use the phrase reasonable expectation of privacy, or do we just forget [it]? Then referencing prior administrative search cases, he asked whether the phrase closely regulated is another way to talk about reasonable expectation of privacy?

Both Rosenkranz and Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben (arguing on behalf of the federal government in support of Los Angeles) quickly picked up on the point: noting that the ordinance has been on the books for many years, Rosenkranz argued that no one goes into the hotel business unaware that their registers will be inspected. Dreeben later chose to begin his argument by proposing a much narrower basis: the ordinance involves an entry only into the public lobby area of a motel. Although Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sonia Sotomayor quickly took issue with Dreebens suggestion, the second question (whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy and, if so, how that affects the case) does not appear to be dead.

The substantive merits: The warrant requirement argument appears to be obscured.

With only twenty minutes (because the city was sharing its time with the federal government), Rosenkranzs opening argument otherwise focused entirely on the merits of the ordinance; the facial challenge aspect of the case was not raised until Dreeben stood up. Rosenkranz began by dramatically asserting that this case is about whether to deprive cities of one of the most effective tools they have to deter human trafficking and other short-term criminal activity in motels. He argued that it is necessary to allow frequent, unannounced spot inspections in real time without notice.

More here:
Argument analysis: How does requiring a warrant interfere with surprise police searches of hotel guest registers?

GTA Online - Team Deathmatch - Fourth Amendment - PS4
Team deathmatch on the map "Fourth Amendment" on PS4.

By: widd77

See original here:
GTA Online - Team Deathmatch - Fourth Amendment - PS4 - Video