The Supreme Court raised constitutional doubts Monday about the lifelong monitoring of sex offenders and other criminals with the use of GPS devices.

In a unanimous decision, the justices ruled for a North Carolina man and said this monitoring is a search under the Fourth Amendment that must be justified as reasonable based on all the circumstances.

Since 2005, 40 states have adopted laws that provide for GPS monitoring of ex-offenders. California was said to have the first and largest monitoring program. The court was told 9,300 sex offenders in California were being tracked, along with some gang members.

Mondays decision stops well short of striking down such monitoring, but it opens the door for ex-offenders to argue for limits.

A North Carolina lawyer who appealed the case praised the court for putting some restrictions on monitoring.

This is a significant case. North Carolina and other states have basically taken the position that they can strap a GPS monitoring device to whomever they choose. The court here is basically saying, no, any such search must be reasonable. In many cases, thats going to be impossible to demonstrate, said Luke Everett, a lawyer in Durham.

After a 20-minute hearing in 2013, Torrey Grady was ordered to enter a GPS monitoring program that would require him to wear an ankle bracelet for the remainder of his natural life. He was not on probation, but he had been convicted of a sex offense when he was a teenager in 1997 and of taking indecent liberties with a child in 2006.

North Carolinas law calls for monitoring of repeat offenders. He appealed the order, arguing it was an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. A North Carolina court ruled that monitoring was not a search at all, and the North Carolina Supreme Court refused to hear his claim.

The Supreme Court issued a summary reversal Monday in Grady v. North Carolina and said the monitoring was governed by the Fourth Amendment. A state conducts a search when it attaches a device to a persons body, without consent, for the purpose of tracking that individuals movement, the justices said.

But they note the Fourth Amendment forbids only unreasonable searches, and they sent the case back to North Carolina for judges there to consider whether the lifelong monitoring of Grady was reasonable.

Read more:

Supreme Court questions lifelong monitoring of sex offenders

The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution protects Americans against unreasonable searches and seizures of either self or property by government officials. When the government oversteps its authority, those responsible must be held accountable for their actions. With few exceptions, however, government surveillance focuses on protecting life, property and the American way. Private surveillance, on the other hand, is governed by no laws, and is conducted for self-interest and profit. In volume, stealth and intrusiveness, the private sector far surpasses anything the government has attempted or even contemplated doing. Yet, while Americans regularly read or hear about the National Security Agency (NSA) and Central Intelligence Agencys (CIA) intrusion into their lives, not many seem to be accusing private companies like Walmart or the Ford Motor Company of spying on people. It comes down to whether Americans trust companies like Verizon, Target, and Google to respect their privacy more than they trust the US government. The intelligence communitys focus is on foreign threats and activities overseas. The CIA and NSA operate under strict rules and regulations, including a ban against collecting information on Americans. The current policy states that signals intelligence shall be collected exclusively where there is a foreign intelligence or counterintelligence purpose to support national and departmental missions and not for any other purposes. The private sector, on the other hand, focuses on the bottom line and operates unfettered. Google a resort in Mexico, and see how ads for that destination continue to pop up every time you open your Internet browser. And that is only the tip of the iceberg. You cant imagine all the things going on behind the scenes that you arent able to see. Government surveillance, of course, increases when a known terrorist or other enemy of the United States contacts an American citizen. Following 9/11, NSA analysts were given limited access to the bad guys communication links to the United States. Even then, however, the privacy of American citizens remained a top priority. Going forward, if a known terrorist communicates with an American citizen, I suspect most Americans would feel more comfortable knowing someone is watching their back. Having spent more than 40 years as an intelligence officer, I know first-hand that the US intelligence community has made its share of mistakes (being dead wrong about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and condoning torture spring readily to mind). And I continue to believe in the necessity of strict congressional oversight and restrictions, which separate the US intelligence community from other intelligence organizations like the KGB. This oversight is critical for an intelligence community serving a democratic country. It is true that the US intelligence community has at times been overzealous in protecting against terrorist threats and others who could do the United States harm, but not because it was seeking to pry into the private affairs of American citizens. For me, the NSA and Drug Enforcement Administrations (DEA) bulk collection and storage programs fall into the overzealous category. I am aware of the argument that more is better, but when weighed against privacy rights and the questionable predictive value of these materials, these arguments dont make sense. As in other areas, the Intelligence Community tends to overstate its capability to predict future events. I suspect the efforts to stop or disrupt terrorist attacks are on par with law enforcements (rather poor) record on stopping premeditated murders, kidnappings, and the spread of illegal drugs. For me, the larger problem is the massive effort by private companies to collect every bit of data they can about me: my health, what I buy, what I eat, where I shop, who I talk to, and on and on. All of this is done not only without my permission, but also without my knowledge and it is legal. Of course, I dont want the government snooping around in my private affairs any more than you do. Yet, if it is in the nations security interest and my privacy remains protected, access to my metadata doesnt seem like too much for my government to ask of me. The writer is the former head of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), US State Department. (In partnership with The Mark News)

Read the rest here:

Worrying about online privacy

JULIE SHAW, Daily News Staff Writer shawj@phillynews.com, 215-854-2592 Posted: Sunday, March 29, 2015, 3:01 AM

AN ATTORNEY for a man who sued two cops over a 2013 stop-and-frisk filed a motion in federal court yesterday seeking a new trial based in part on jurors' confusion over the verdict sheet.

Paul Messing, attorney for plaintiff Herbert Spellman, 51, contended in a memorandum that U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell had a duty to explain to the jury that its verdict sheet "contained contradictory responses, and to further instruct or provide guidance to the jury on its options." By not doing so "was error," he wrote.

Messing also attached a signed "declaration" by one juror, which said all seven jurors unanimously agreed that the two cops, David O'Connor, 31, and Brad Momme, 29, who stopped and frisked Spellman, violated his rights.

The Daily News found a phone number yesterday for that juror, a Chester County man, 63, in a public database and called him.

The man, who asked that his name not be published, told the Daily News: "The verdict that we recorded wasn't the verdict that the jury intended. So the will of the jury was not held forth."

The jury, on its March 18 verdict sheet, answered "No" to questions asking if the officers seized, searched and detained Spellman "in violation of the Fourth Amendment causing harm" to him and if the cops "used unreasonable force" against Spellman "in violation of the Fourth Amendment causing harm" to him.

The Chester County juror said the "causing harm" part of the questions "was what threw us."

The jury did not think there was sufficient evidence showing the cops caused Spellman any physical injuries, the juror said.

"But, we did think there was sufficient evidence [that the cops] didn't have just cause to stop Spellman," he said.

Read the original here:

Attorney seeks new trial in stop-and-frisk case

The Department of Justice recently edged closer to a rule change that would allow the FBI to track suspected criminals' computer activity more easily. The Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules voted last week in favor of an update to Rule 41, which dictates how judges can issue search warrants on electronic devices, Government Executive reported. The new rule 41 would let judges OK warrants to examine computers remotely anywhere as opposed to only those in their districts. The FBI would also no longer would be required to give users notice ahead of its searches.

"The rule itself would be an acknowledgement that remote access searches are valid without notice, without special justification," Electronic Privacy Information Center general counsel Alan Butler told Gizmodo. "Notice is one of the essential procedural protections of the Fourth Amendment. Validating a rule that implies that notice will never happen does not comport with the Fourth Amendment."

The Fourth Amendment forbids unreasonable searches and seizures.

The FBI has requested the rule change to better function in the 21st-century world of technology, DefenseOnereported. The agency would have more options, like the authority to secretly install tracking software on the computers of alleged criminals.

Privacy groups are opposed to this. Google came out against the Rule 41 change last week, arguing it raises a number of monumental and highly complex constitutional, legal and geopolitical concerns that should be left to Congress to decide. The Department of Justice fired back, saying the amendment had been misread and would not authorize the government to undertake any search or seizure or use any remote search technique not already permitted under current law.

In any event, the proposal will next go before the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, then the Supreme Court. If approved, Gizmodo reported, Rule 41 could be updated by December 2016.

Read more here:

Rule 41 Change Could Allow FBI To Get Warrants To Remotely Search Suspects' Computers Without Notice

Senate Votes Against Fourth Amendment Protection Act 720p
I am just a middleman trying to spread the word FAIR USE NOTICE: This video may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for entertainment purposes only. This constitutes...

By: Timothy anon

Read the original post:

Senate Votes Against Fourth Amendment Protection Act 720p - Video

The rules for how the Department of Justice tracks down criminals in the digital age are woefully arcane, but the DoJ's recent proposed changes to update those rules go way too far, using vague terms to grant sweeping remote search powers that would radically undermine the Fourth Amendment.

Under the auspices of probable cause, it'd give FBI agents the power to install tracking malware on computers all over the world, without telling people they've started surveillance. Even though it looks like a minor rule change, the proposal would make it much easier for FBI agents to get warrants on computers without first figuring out their exact location. It gives judges much more flexibility on handing out remote search warrants outside of their jurisdictions. And that would give federal agents way more power to search computers.

This proposal isn't just the DOJ being Big Brothery for no reason. Remote computer searches are difficult to execute right now and that's an obstacle for combating digital crime and hunting criminals who use anonymizing software. This is a real problem, and something that needs to be addressed. But not this way. This is like using a nuke instead of a sniper rifle, and it's going to blow up our privacy rights.

I'm not going to lie, I didn't think I'd ever write an article about a DOJ procedural change because frankly, that sounds like comically dull policy housekeeping. And comically dull is what they were going for: It's a lot easier to slip in a major expansion of power if no one cares enough to pay attention.

But this proposal is way too big not to notice, no matter how boring-sounding and rote the DOJ tries to make it.

"Basically, we think this is a substantive legal change masquerading as a mere procedural rule change," Electronic Frontier Foundation staff counsel Hanni Fakhoury told me via email. "The government is essentially pushing for approval of the idea that it should have the power to deploy malware and execute remote searches. To us, it seems like that's a decision Congress should make."

The vague language of these rules could galvanize an avalanche of covert government surveillance by making it totally OK in certain situations to search peoples' computers without ever letting them know. And that's a violation of the Bill of Rights hidden inside a wonky-sounding procedural adjustment.

Right now, law enforcement officials can get a warrant to search computers remotely, as long as they have probable cause. But, apart from rare, limited circumstances, they need to find the right jurisdiction to petition for a warrant, and they need to give notice of their searches to whoever they're investigating. Notice is an important part of our Fourth Amendment privacy right. It's generally not legal for FBI agents to search you and never tell you. Except this change would make it so.

"The rule itself would be an acknowledgement that remote access searches are valid without notice, without special justification," Electronic Privacy Information Center general counsel Alan Butler told me. "Notice is one of the essential procedural protections of the Fourth Amendment. Validating a rule that implies that notice will never happen does not comport with the Fourth Amendment."

Here is the original post:

The DOJ Is Sneaking in a Policy That'd Crap All Over the 4th Amendment

Faculty on Point | Professor Jeffrey Fisher on Digital Privacy and the Riley Decision
Professor Jeffrey L. Fisher, lead counsel in the digital privacy case Riley v. California, discusses preparing the case and implications of this landmark U.S. Supreme Court Fourth Amendment...

By: stanfordlawschool

See the original post here:

Faculty on Point | Professor Jeffrey Fisher on Digital Privacy and the Riley Decision - Video

Private Members Bill: Thirty Fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Neutrality) Bill 2013

By: Shane Ross

More:

Private Members Bill: Thirty Fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Neutrality) Bill 2013 - Video

Cato Surveillance Conference Keynote Speaker Rep. Thomas Massie
Follow the link to watch the full event: http://www.cato.org/events/2014-cato-institute-surveillance-conference How should these tracking technologies be regulated by the Fourth Amendment...

By: catoinstitutevideo

Read the original post:

Cato Surveillance Conference Keynote Speaker Rep. Thomas Massie - Video

After four months of random bag checks at more than 40 CTA stations, the results are in: Officers checked 2,600 bags, found zero explosives and made only one arrest. The bag-check initiative, which began Nov. 3 and had full support of Mayor Emmanuel, is funded by a grant from the Transportation Security Administration and currently has no end date.

The CTA announced it has not received any complaints from the public regarding the bag checks. But what about the one arrest made? Turns out, protestor Scott Davis, 43, told the RedEye he was acting in protest of the violation of his Fourth Amendment rights which can be registered as a very public complaint, CTA by refusing to have his bag checked and then attempting to board a Brown Line train. Davis was charged with criminal trespass to state land and disorderly conduct. According to policy, riders are able to refuse bag checks but must leave the CTA station or face arrest. However, refusing a bag check does not stop someone from entering the same station via another entrance, or boarding at a different stop.

So, are the bag checks actually against our Fourth Amendment rights?

According to MacWade vs. Kelly a Second Circuit Court ruling in 2006 no. The case was brought by the ACLU against the Commissioner of the New York City Police Department and the City of New York after subway bag checks were enacted in 2005, which were in response to the Madrid and London subway bombings of 2004 and 2005. The ruling sets precedent for five requirements that must be met for these programs to be deemed constitutional, including:

1. Passengers receive notice of the searches and may decline to be searched so long as they leave the subway. 2. Police search only those containers capable of concealing explosives. 3. A typical search lasts only for a matter of seconds. 4. Uniformed personnel conduct the searches out in the open, which reduces the fear and stigma that removal to a hidden area can cause. 5. Police exercise no discretion in selecting whom to search, but rather employ a formula that ensures they do not arbitrarily exercise their authority.

While Mayor Emanuel has defended the measures in Chicago for providing public security while protecting privacy, critics contend that the measure is simply for show afterall, there are 145 CTA stations and thousands of riders passing through them each day. Others insist that the bag checks could be used to target young, male minorities. It's yet to be seen whether the measure has yielded more harm than good.

Read this article:

Are CTA Bag Checks Against Our Fourth Amendment Rights?

David Allen Legal Tuesday: Wall Piercing Radar Raises Fourth Amendment Protection Issues
Attorney David Allen discusses a case in which a convicted felon, Steven Denson, failed to report to his probation officer. An arrest warrant was issued in W...

By: David Allen

Read more:

David Allen Legal Tuesday: Wall Piercing Radar Raises Fourth Amendment Protection Issues - Video

Criminal Procedure tutorial: Limitations on the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule | quimbee.com
A brief excerpt from Quimbee #39;s tutorial video on the important exceptions to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule, including standing, use in criminal tria...

By: Quimbee.com

See the original post:

Criminal Procedure tutorial: Limitations on the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule | quimbee.com - Video

COP WATCH Fourth Amendment ARREST
A few interesting things about this #copwatch... 1. I was simply sitting in the parking lot and this girl gets pulled over next to me. This cop watch came to me! 2. I didn #39;t hit record...

By: Ryan Scott

The rest is here:

COP WATCH Fourth Amendment ARREST - Video

Wikipedia's parent organization just joined the fight against dragnet government surveillance.

The ACLU filed a lawsuit today against the National Security Administration for its spying tactics. The lawsuit challenges the NSA's surveillance program as a violation of Fourth Amendment privacy rights, an infringement on First Amendment rights, and an overstepping of the authority given to the NSA under Congress' FISA Amendments Act.

"The reason we're filing this lawsuit is that we feel we've been harmed directly by the NSA," Wikimedia General Counsel Geoff Brigham told me, noting that the NSA explicitly targeted Wikipedia in a top secret document revealed by Edward Snowden. Plaintiffs stretch across political boundaries and include both conservative and liberal organizations.

This is far from the only recent lawsuit against the NSA. In February, a judge announced that he can't rule in Jewel vs. NSA, a lawsuit filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation against the NSA's spying tactics. The EFF has also filed a suit regarding government spying in July 2013 (First Unitarian vs. NSA) and helped the ACLU on the legal team for Smith vs. Obama, which also argued that bulk government data collection violates a citizen's Fourth Amendment rights.

So far, none of these cases have worked out. Smith v. Obama was dismissed. And the ACLU cited Clapper vs. Amnesty as a precedent to this case. While that lawsuit wound up dismissed by the Supreme Court after it determined that plaintiffs couldn't prove they were getting spied on, there's still a lot of optimism this time around.

"I expect the district court will rule in our favor and that the NSA will accept that ruling," Bingham told me.

First Unitarian is still pending, and also boasts a long and weird list of organizations united together primarily by their reluctance to be okay with sweeping government surveillance. Just to give you a glimpse at the scope of furious groups, here's a list of all the companies and organizations currently participating in pending suits related to the NSA's surveillance program:

I have a feeling this list will just keep growing if the pending cases aren't heard soon. So far, Obama's weak stabs at NSA reform haven't exactly soothed reasonable concerns that government surveillance is an uncontrolled privacy piss-storm.

Read more:

Wikipedia Just Joined the List of Pissed-Off Organizations Suing the NSA

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.

Go here to see the original:

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.

View post:

DOJ report says Ferguson PD routinely violated rights of African-Americans

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.

Excerpt from:

Officials: DOJ report finds racial bias in Ferguson police

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."

Follow this link:

The Fourth Amendment Covers DNA Collection

Fourth Amendment Video Project
Mr. Tupka period 7.

By: Kyle Cohen

Read more from the original source:

Fourth Amendment Video Project - Video

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

Original post:

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