Category Archives: Fourth Amendment

On Monday, the Ninth Circuit held oral argument in Smith v. Obama, a Fourth Amendment challenge to the Section 215 telephony metadata program. You can watch a video of the argument here. The panel consisted of Judges Hawkins, McKeown, and Tallman. This was the third argument by a federal circuit involving a challenge to the telephony metadata program. The others are the Second Circuit and the DC Circuit, neither of which has handed down a ruling yet.

To win the case before the Ninth Circuit, the plaintiff needs to win on three basic questions: 1) did the plaintiff have standing; 2) did a search occur; and 3) was the search constitutionally unreasonable. There was significant questioning on standing and a lot on what is a search, but very little on reasonableness. On the whole, I think that emphasis is probably a good sign for the government. With that said, Im not sure which way the case will come out. Judge Tallman seemed pretty likely to vote for the government on either or both of the first two questions. I had less sense where Judges Hawkins and McKeown might come out.

I want to focus on an interesting question that Judge McKeown asked Thomas Byron, counsel for the government defendant: When applying the reasonable expectation of privacy test, how do we know what society expects when it comes to a big surveillance program like Section 215s program? Byron gave what I think is the correct doctrinal answer: Smith v. Maryland tells us as a matter of law that people have no reasonable expectation of privacy in pen register data from their phones, and there is nothing in Smith that suggests that scale or aggregation can make any difference. Although thats a good doctrinal answer, I think theres a historical explanation that is more satisfying. I cover the historical explanation in this forthcoming article, starting at page 11, and I thought I would give a basic outline here.

As I explain in the article, the original design of Justice Harlans two-part Katz test was to summarize the two basic requirements of establishing Fourth Amendment rights: first, that the intrusion was into the kinds of spaces that the Fourth Amendment protects, like homes or cars or (in Katz) telephone booths; and second, that the person had not openly exposed his protected space to outside observation. The first part was labeled the objective test, as it rested on whether the space invaded was the kind of space that merited Fourth Amendment protection in a general sense; and the second test was labeled the subjective test, as it hinged on whether the person took steps to hide the space from outside observation, manifesting an intent to keep it private in those specific circumstances.

The rule that you cant have any Fourth Amendment protection in what you share with a third-party was originally part of the subjective test. By revealing your information to a third party, the thinking ran, you no longer manifested an intent to keep your information private and gave up your rights in that information. The government therefore could get it from the third party without implicating your rights. Although that was the original design of Harlans test, later opinions of the Court misunderstood this point. Later decisions, including Smith v. Maryland, simply assumed that the test labeled subjective was an inquiry into what a person actually expected to happen. Smith had to fit the traditional rule that a person has no Fourth Amendment rights in what they disclose to third-parties somewhere, however, so the rule ended up being squeezed artificially into the reasonable expectation of privacy test instead. The result has confused law students for decades: We get the strange-seeming announcement that theres no reasonable expectation of privacy in circumstances when a lot of people probably think it feels pretty reasonable to them.

Why does all this matter? I think it matters because it shows that Judge McKeowns question is based on the Smith courts accidental rephrasing of the third-party rule. Understanding the accident explains why the question that seems really difficult at first blush ends up having a simple answer. The reason the government does not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of a telephone user when collecting metadata from the phone company should have nothing to do with what society expects. Instead, the reason is that if you knowingly disclose information to a third party, you are not manifesting your subjective expectation of privacy in that information and dont have any way to control it under the Fourth Amendment as a matter of law. From that perspective, we dont need to know what society expects, or what privacy policies say, to apply the third-party doctrine. What society expects is irrelevant, as the doctrine was originally and properly rooted in the subjective test instead of the objective test.

To be clear, the doctrinally correct result Byron offered brings you to the same result in the end. If you say that Smith v. Maryland requires lower courts to say that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in pen register information as a matter of law, you get to the same result that no search has occurred. But I hope its at least a little bit illuminating to see how we got here, and in particular to see why applying Smith does not call for courts to make first-principles inquiries into societal expectations.

Orin Kerr is the Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor at The George Washington University Law School, where he has taught since 2001. He teaches and writes in the area of criminal procedure and computer crime law.

Read the rest here:
Volokh Conspiracy: Ninth Circuit hears NSA program challenge

PART 4 - PRIVACY - Celebrating Freedom, Fighting for Justice
The Fourth Amendment protects every citizen #39;s right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion, and ACLU-TN #39;s work to preserve privacy includes lobbyi...

By: ACLU Tennessee

Read more:
PART 4 - PRIVACY - Celebrating Freedom, Fighting for Justice - Video

Usually it's the big guys, or at least national and international organizations, that stand up to fight against the government. But on Monday, a nurse from Idaho will continue to fight the case she brought against Barack Obama and government intelligence agencies. Anna Smith says her Fourth Amendment rights were violated when the NSA collected data about her from phone records.

A district court ruled against Smith when she first started to fight the case, but now she has the backing of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho.

The original case dates back to June 2013, shortly after the activities of the NSA first came to light. Now the EFF, ACLU, the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho, and Smith husband have worked together to craft an appeal. The case will be heard at the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and will center on several areas.

One argument is that "neither Smith nor any other precedent authorizes the suspicionless collection of call records in bulk" and that the collection of such data is an invasion of privacy. The appeal also says that the government's mass collection of phone data violates the fourth Amendment and is unconstitutional "because it is warrantless and lacks probable cause".

This is not the first time the Electronic Frontier Foundation has become involved in a case against the government and the NSA, and it is unlikely to be the last. This appeal starts on Monday 8 December at 9:00 AM PST, and we'll be following along to see what happens.

Photo credit: bikeriderlondon / Shutterstock

See the article here:
Idaho nurse gains backing of EFF and ACLU in fight against the NSA

Sen Rand Paul Defends the Fourth Amendment February 11, 2014
News in World START EARN MONEY NOW!!! http://lin.kim/2BKxw.

By: News in World

See the article here:
Sen Rand Paul Defends the Fourth Amendment February 11, 2014 - Video

I recently participated in a provocative and interesting panel on the Fourth Amendment and new technology during a conference at Georgetown Law. My co-panelists were Judge Richard Posner, Judge Margaret McKeown, DOJs Michael Dreeben, and Georgetowns David Cole. Georgetowns Laura Donohue moderated. You can watch the whole thing here via C-SPAN.

If you only want to watch the highlight, check out this 6-minute excerpt over the value of privacy between Judge Posner and David Cole. We had been talking about searching cell phones, and Posner expressed his view that cell phone privacy was no big deal. Cole disagreed, and the two of them debated the issue. I score this Cole 1, Posner 0.

Orin Kerr is the Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor at The George Washington University Law School, where he has taught since 2001. He teaches and writes in the area of criminal procedure and computer crime law.

Read more from the original source:
Volokh Conspiracy: Panel discussion on the future of the Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment by Melissa, Hailee, and Cheyenne

By: Melissa Murray

Continued here:
The Fourth Amendment by Melissa, Hailee, and Cheyenne - Video

Fourth Amendment - Blaze, John, Adam

By: John Regula

Read this article:
Fourth Amendment - Blaze, John, Adam - Video

Follow CBSMIAMI.COM:Facebook|Twitter

TALLAHASSEE (CBSMiami/ NSF) A federal appeals court on Wednesday, again rejected a Florida law requiring welfare applicants to submit to drug tests before they can receive benefits.

Pushed by Florida Governor Rick Scott, the 2011 law offends the Fourth Amendment protections from unreasonable searches by the government, a three-judge panel ruled in a 54-page opinion authored by Judge Stanley Marcus.

We respect the states overarching and laudable desire to promote work, protect families, and conserve resources. But, above all else, we must enforce the Constitution and the limits it places on government. If we are to give meaning to the Fourth Amendments prohibition on blanket government searches, we must and we do hold that (the Florida law) crosses the constitutional line, Marcus wrote.

The ruling, which upheld a final judgment late last year by U.S. District Judge Mary Scriven, is the fourth time courts have sided with the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida and the Florida Justice Institute, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of Luis Lebron, a Navy veteran and single father. The lawsuit was filed shortly after the law went into effect in mid-2011. Scott used mandatory drug tests as an issue in his 2010 campaign.

This is a resounding affirmation of the values that the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects that none of us can be forced to submit to invasive and humiliating searches at the whim of the government, and that the Constitution protects the poor and the wealthy alike. The court has once again confirmed what we argued all along: that the state of Florida cannot treat an entire class of people like suspected criminals simply because theyve asked the state for temporary assistance, ACLU of Florida associate legal director Maria Kayanan, who argued the case before the court Nov. 20, said in a statement.

Scott can either ask the 11th Circuit for an en banc review by the entire court or pursue an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court. The Scott administration did not comment Wednesday afternoon on the ruling. Despite repeated court decisions finding that the welfare drug testing law is unconstitutional, Scott and his lawyers have refused to back down from their position that the urine tests are needed to make sure poor children dont grow up in drug-riddled households.

But the appeals-court judges again rejected the Scott administrations arguments, saying that the state failed to make its case.

In effect from July 1, 2011, until Oct. 24, 2011, when Scriven issued a preliminary injunction putting it on hold, the law required applicants seeking benefits in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program emergency cash benefits for the poorest of the poor, available to expectant mothers and families with children to submit to and pay for urine tests, which range from $24 to $45. The money would be reimbursed if the tests were negative, and parents who failed the tests could designate someone else to receive cash benefits on behalf of their children.

During the period in which the law was in effect, 4,406 applicants submitted to drug testing. Only 108 less than 3 percent tested positive for drugs. Another 2,306 applicants failed to complete the applications or receive the drug screens.

View original post here:
Appeals Court: Welfare Drug Tests Unconstitutional

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -

Less than two weeks after hearing arguments in the case, a federal appeals court Wednesday again rejected a Florida law pushed by Gov. Rick Scott requiring welfare applicants to submit to drug tests before they can receive benefits.

The 2011 law "offends the Fourth Amendment" protections from unreasonable searches by the government, a three-judge panel ruled in a 54-page opinion authored by Judge Stanley Marcus.

"We respect the states overarching and laudable desire to promote work, protect families, and conserve resources. But, above all else, we must enforce the Constitution and the limits it places on government. If we are to give meaning to the Fourth Amendments prohibition on blanket government searches, we must -- and we do -- hold that (the Florida law) crosses the constitutional line," Marcus wrote.

The ruling, which upheld a final judgment late last year by U.S. District Judge Mary Scriven, is the fourth time courts have sided with the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida and the Florida Justice Institute, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of Luis Lebron, a Navy veteran and single father. The lawsuit was filed shortly after the law went into effect in mid-2011. Scott used mandatory drug tests as an issue in his 2010 campaign.

"This is a resounding affirmation of the values that the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects -- that none of us can be forced to submit to invasive and humiliating searches at the whim of the government, and that the Constitution protects the poor and the wealthy alike. The court has once again confirmed what we argued all along: that the state of Florida cannot treat an entire class of people like suspected criminals simply because theyve asked the state for temporary assistance," ACLU of Florida associate legal director Maria Kayanan, who argued the case before the court Nov. 20, said in a statement.

Scott can either ask the 11th Circuit for an "en banc" review by the entire court or pursue an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court. The Scott administration did not comment Wednesday afternoon on the ruling. Despite repeated court decisions finding that the welfare drug testing law is unconstitutional, Scott and his lawyers have refused to back down from their position that the urine tests are needed to make sure poor children don't grow up in drug-riddled households.

But the appeals-court judges again rejected the Scott administration's arguments, saying that the state failed to make its case.

In effect from July 1, 2011, until Oct. 24, 2011, when Scriven issued a preliminary injunction putting it on hold, the law required applicants seeking benefits in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program -- emergency cash benefits for "the poorest of the poor," available to expectant mothers and families with children -- to submit to and pay for urine tests, which range from $24 to $45. The money would be reimbursed if the tests were negative, and parents who failed the tests could designate someone else to receive cash benefits on behalf of their children.

During the period in which the law was in effect, 4,406 applicants submitted to drug testing. Only 108 -- less than 3 percent -- tested positive for drugs. Another 2,306 applicants failed to complete the applications or receive the drug screens.

Continue reading here:
The U.S. PIRG

CLEVELAND, Dec. 4 (UPI) -- The city of Cleveland has agreed to implement sweeping police reforms after the U.S. Attorney General's office uncovered a lengthy history of excessive force and abusive behavior in the troubled department.

"The reality is that there are problems," Attorney General Holder said in an official statement, adding, "But I also think the people of Cleveland should have a sense of hope ... that these problems have been identified and that they can be rectified."

Among the Justice Department's key findings:

-- The unnecessary, excessive or retaliatory use of less lethal force including Tasers, chemical spray and fists;

Excessive force against persons who are mentally ill or in crisis, including in cases where the officers were called exclusively for a welfare check;

-- The employment of poor and dangerous tactics that place officers in situations where avoidable force becomes inevitable.

"The investigation concluded that there is reasonable cause to believe that Cleveland police officers engage in a pattern or practice of unreasonable and in some cases unnecessary force in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution," summarizes the Justice Department.

To revamp its department to contemporary standards, the city of Cleveland agreed to "develop a court enforceable consent decree that will include a requirement for an independent monitor who will oversee and ensure necessary reforms."

"Cleveland is not alone in its need to address police reform," Venita Gupta, acting Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division, told the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

"These investigations are keystones of Attorney General Holder's legacy, and I think it's very significant that he is coming to Cleveland with a backdrop of these national issues to talk about community policing and constructive reforms."

Read more here:
Justice Department cites Cleveland police for pattern excessive force and abuse