NEW HAMPTON, Mo. A Christian homeschooling organization has filed a legal challenge against a Missouri sheriff and his deputy after they pepper sprayed and tasered a couple in front of their children when they refused to let them in the house without a warrant.

The situation occurred in September 2011 after a Missouri Child Protective Services (CPS) agent had visited the home of Jason and Laura Hagan of New Hampton following a complaint of a messy home. When the caseworker sought to return a second time for a follow-up, the couple refused. CPS then called the police.

According to the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA),Sheriff Darren White andChief Sheriffs Deputy David Glidden then arrived at the home, seeking to enter. Mr. Hagan told the men that they needed to obtain a warrant from a court.

When Glidden stated that he would enter anyway, Hagan turned to go back in the house, and was consequently pepper sprayed in the back of his head, and then in his face. Mrs. Hagan was then sprayed as well.

As Mr. Hagan was still standing after the ordeal, he was then tasered, which caused him to fall to the floor just inside of the door. Mrs. Hagan then closed the door on the deputy.

But at this point, White joined Glidden on the porch, and together they busted open the Hagans door, forcing their way inside. They found both Mr. and Mrs. Hagan lying on the floor and began pepper spraying them again. They also sprayed a chemical agent on the dog and threatened that they would shoot if he did not stop barking at them.

The Hagans were then handcuffed and charged with child endangerment and resisting arrest, and the children were taken to the hospital for exposure to the pepper spray used by the sheriff and his deputy on their parents. The children at the time were ages 13, 10 and 8.

As the Hagans were then forced to appear in court to answer for the charges, a judge instead found that Glidden and White had violated the couples Fourth Amendment rights by forcing entry into their home without a warrant.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, the constitutional amendment reads.

Original post:

Homeschool Parents Pepper Sprayed, Tasered By Missouri Sheriff, Deputy in Front of Children

Current Fourth Amendment Issues Regarding Cell Phone and Email Privacy
Constitution Day Program, Professor Jennifer Brooke Sargent, J.D. Hey, You Can #39;t Just Look in There: Current Fourth Amendment Issues Regarding Cell Phone and...

By: Dartmouth

Read the original here:

Current Fourth Amendment Issues Regarding Cell Phone and Email Privacy - Video

The USA Freedom Act died in the SenateTuesdaynight. With it went a provision for a weak advocate to provide at least the beginnings of anadversarial position in the secret FISA court for more exotic requests. The measure would haveallowedthe FISC to consider viewpoints outside that of the government while still retaining the courts secrecy.

Even as that effort to do something to make the FISA court less like as Sen. Richard Blumenthal said during Tuesdaysdebate theStar Chamber, the British kings old secret court, failed, the government released atranscriptfrom a hearing at the FISA Court of Review, the appellate court to the FISC. The hearing considered Yahoos challenge to the Protect America Act, a precursor to todays PRISM program, which required the Internet provider to hand over customer data in response to government directives rather than warrants.

Some of the claims judges made in the secret hearing would be funny perhaps were meant to be if they werent so alarming, coming from a judge working in secret. For example,perhapsas a way of arguing the Fourth Amendment only requires searches to be reasonable, not require warrants, Judge Morris Arnold noted that the warrant clause is at the bottom end of the Fourth Amendment. As if sticking the requirement for warrants at the back end of a constitutional amendment made it optional.

Other commentswere downright troubling, as when Arnold suggested Yahoo hadnt been injured by the governments demand that it help it spy on their customers. Well, if this order is enforced and its secret, how can you be hurt? Arnold asked. The people dont know that that theyre being monitored in some way. Arnold continued, I mean, whats whats the whats your whats the damage to your consumer?

The most substantively outrageous comments came from Acting Solicitor General Gregory Garre. To dismiss any Fourth Amendment concerns about the American side of communications collected along with a target, Garre claimed incidentally collected Americans content is either destroyed and not used or disseminated. He then claimed there is no database that is taken from incidental collections.

That claim made it intoFISCRs final rulingto justify the courts finding that the incidental collection of large amounts of Americans data did not implicate the Fourth Amendment. The government assures us that it does not maintain a database of incidentally collected information from non-targeted United States persons, and there is no evidence to the contrary, the opinion read. On these facts, incidentally collected communications of non-targeted United States persons do not violate the Fourth Amendment. Even when that claim was first revealedfive years ago, it waspretty clear it was not true. Since then weve learned the government not only keeps that data, meaning it does, in fact, have thedatabase it claimed in secret it didnt have. Weve also learned the governmentsearchesAmericans names and email addresses, even before it has evidence of wrongdoing against them. The FBI does it so frequently, they cannot count how often they do.

Thats not the only gross misrepresentation the government told in the secrecy of Americas Star Chamber.

Later in the hearing, Garre pointed tothe order the government uses to authorizeits spying activities,Executive Order 12333, to prove that it did not spy on Americans overseas without conducting some kind of review that theAmerican is some kind of agent of a foreign power. He emphasized the longevity of the EO. It was issued in 1981, Garre said in 2008, and that is an order that has been followed. I dont think anyone disputes that its been followed. Garre offered up but did not deliver a discussion or explanation of the manner in which Section 2.5 has been carried out over the past few decades. Judge Arnold asked, Your main point is that this wasnt just something hoped [sic] up for present purposes; its been in effect for quite some time? Garre answered, Thats exactly right.

Only it wasnt exactly right.

AsSalon has noted, just six months before Garre made those comments, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouserevealedhow the EO had in reality been treated during the years it authorized a warrantless wiretap program. In fact, sometimeearlier in the Bush administration, DOJs Office of Legal Counsel, a department that interprets the law for the executive branch, had ruled that,An executive order cannot limit a President, Whitehouse read from language he got declassified to read before the Senate.There is no constitutional requirement for a President to issue a new executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a previous executive order.Rather than violate an executive order, the President has instead modified or waived it. As described, the EO Garre claimed was so rock solid was actually closer to pixie dust.

More:

This is America? Secret courts, no Fourth Amendment and magic pixie dust

The Pueblo County Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously Tuesday night to approve a fourth amendment to a special use permit regarding a gun range operated by the Pueblo West Sportsmans Association on the 600 block of East Loma Drive.

Seven members of the commission voted yes to approve the amendment. One member was absent and one abstained from voting. The special use permit allowing the PWSA facility was originally approved by the commission in 1986 and has had three prior amendments approved in 1990, 1993 and 2011.

The vote of approval was given by the commission provided 14 amended conditions are met by the gun range, which help satisfy safety concerns that have been brought up about it consisting mainly of berm heights and bullet ricochets potentially leaving the confines of the range.

In addition to the conditions of approval, a directive was ordered for the Department of Planning and Development to conduct an administrative review of the property in May and present a report to the planning commission about how the gun range is complying with the Pueblo County code and the conditions of approval.

See the original post here:

Gun range on clock to comply

Ray McGovern "There is this Fourth Amendment thing"
Watch full episode of the Debate here: http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/11/18/386455/debate-us-spiraling-spying/ The United States Department of Justice is spying on mobile phones through...

By: iStateOfMind3

Read the original here:

Ray McGovern "There is this Fourth Amendment thing" - Video

If the Founders and Framers knew about U.S. marshals' reported airborne collection of cellphone data from thousands of innocent Americans while pursuing criminals, they surely would shout, Get a warrant!

First reported by The Wall Street Journal, this program began outrageously violating Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure around 2007. Cessna aircraft, covering most of the U.S. population from five unidentified metro-area airports, carry devices that mimic cell towers, fooling cellphones into reporting their general locations and unique registration information.

These devices supposedly distinguish between innocents' cellphones and those of fugitives, drug dealers and others under criminal investigation. But they can gather data from tens of thousands of phones, encrypted or not, in a single flight. And while court orders supposedly are obtained for these flights, those orders are sealed.

Given how wide a net is cast, it's hard to see how those court orders could be as specific about what's to be searched, for what purpose as search warrants must be under the Fourth Amendment.

The ACLU's chief technologist says judges approving this dragnet surveillance program likely don't realize its scale. Such widespread snooping on innocents is the result of overreaching law enforcers and compliant judges disregarding constitutional wisdom.

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

Read more:

Snoopers flights: Air raid!

4th Amendment at the Border?
The fourth amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure do not necessarily apply at the "border".

By: Adrian Fontes

See original here:

4th Amendment at the Border? - Video

TIME Tech privacy Is the Governments Aerial Smartphone Surveillance Program Legal? The program could violate the Fourth Amendment, some privacy groups say

Civil rights groups are raising serious constitutional questions about the Justice Departments use of dragnet technology onboard aircraft to collect data from suspects cell phones, as reported by the Wall Street Journal Thursday.

The program, run by the U.S. Marshals Service, uses small aircraft equipped with high-tech devices that mimic cell towers, tricking suspects cell phones into connecting with them instead of legitimate towers. The devices, called dirtboxes, can then grab certain data from the tricked phones, most notably their location. The aircraft involved operate from five U.S. metropolitan areas and have together a flying range covering most of the countrys population, the Journal reported.

The program is designed to target suspects in law enforcement investigations. However, the nature of the technology means that devices in a certain range of the aircraft are fooled into connecting to the dirtbox, potentially giving law enforcement access to identifying data and general location information about hundreds or thousands of innocent Americans with each flight. Because that access comes without probable cause, civil liberties groups say, the program could be a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

These devices are sweeping up information about the cell phones of thousands of completely innocent bystanders. That looks a whole lot like the kind of dragnet search that the framers of the Fourth Amendment abhorred, said American Civil Liberties Union attorney Nathan Wheeler.

The Justice Department said it could not confirm or deny the existence of the program. But a department official said that all federal investigations are consistent with federal law and are subject to court approval. That official also said the Marshals Service does not maintain any databases of cell phone information meaning the program could possibly only be used to track the whereabouts of suspects on a case-by-case basis and that its vastly different in nature from the kinds of sweeping government surveillance programs first revealed by Edward Snowden.

Still, is the Justice Departments airborne dragnet program legal? The answer is maybe.

Federal authorities have employed similar tools in the past. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is known to use a surveillance tool called a stingray, a portable transceiver that tricks cell phones within a certain area into relaying their locations, not unlike the equipment onboard the Marshals aircraft. A government vehicle with a stingray can net hundreds of nearby cell phones approximate locations just by driving through a typical neighborhood. The government has said it doesnt need a probable cause warrant to use stingrays because investigators dont collect the content of phone calls, just the locations of those phones. Government officials, meanwhile, have said they get court approval to use the devices.

Much of the governments warrantless use of stingray-style technology hinges on a 1979 Supreme Court decision titled Smith v. Maryland. Smith involved law enforcements use of a device called a pen register that, when attached to a suspects phone line, recorded the numbers of outgoing calls, but not the calls themselves. The Smith decision upheld the warrantless use of such devices because the suspects phone company would record the same data picked up by the pen register, and therefore the suspect had no reasonable expectation of privacy when it came to that information. Currently, the law requires a court to approve the use of a pen register, but investigators only have to show that the devices use is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation, a much weaker standard than a probable cause warrant requires.

Hanni Fakhoury, an attorney at the pro-privacy Electronic Frontier Foundation, says the Department of Justice could use the Smith precedent as legal justification for the airborne dirtbox program. However, Fakhoury also highlighted a key problem with that argument: Location. Pen registers arent intended to pick up location data beyond an area code, whereas the airborne dirtboxes can track a person down to a single building. Many courts, he said, have expressed that location data deserves greater constitutional protection than is afforded to other kinds of information.

See the rest here:

Is the Governments Aerial Smartphone Surveillance Program Legal?

AOL users have no expectation of privacy - Court
AOL users may have given up their Fourth Amendment protections without even realizing it. A district court in New York recently ruled that a section in the email provider #39;s terms of service...

By: RT America

See the original post:

AOL users have no expectation of privacy - Court - Video

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
#39;The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated. #39; Jeffrey...

By: The Aspen Institute

Read more from the original source:

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution - Video

Heres a remarkable case from the Ohio Supreme Court, State v. Hoffman, involving an unconstitutional arrest warrant. The defendant was arrested for a misdemeanor based on a defective arrest warrant, leading to the discovery of evidence of murder. The remarkable part is why the arrest warrant was defective. For at least 17 years, magistrates in Toledo, Ohio were instructed to issue arrest warrants without ever actually making a probable cause determination. Officers would just say that the suspect had committed an offense, and the magistrates would issue the warrant without ever hearing the factual basis for that conclusion. Heres the testimony of the magistrate who issued the arrest warrant in this case:

Q. And during your 17 years of swearing in criminal complaints with requests for arrest warrants, did you know what probable cause was? A. No. Q. Had you ever made a probable cause determination? A. No. * * * Q. Did any of [your] training include making a probable cause determination? A. No, it did not.

Pretty astonishing, given that the text of the Fourth Amendment says, no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.

In the new decision, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognizes the flagrant constitutional violation but concludes that the evidence in this case should not be suppressed because of the good-faith exception. An intermediate state case, State v. Overton, had involved a similar warrant, and the Overton court had held in a one-paragraph summary that the warrant had established probable cause. The Ohio Supreme Court concludes in Hoffman that Overton was binding appellate precedent under Davis at the time the warrant was issued in Hoffman, essentially trumping the text of the Fourth Amendment for purposes of the exclusionary rule.

I find Hoffman puzzling in two ways. First, I think the scope of the exclusionary rule for a defective warrant is set by United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), not Davis. Leon lays out the standards for when the good faith exception applies to defective warrants, and it clearly does not apply here: Leon says that the good faith exception only applies if [s]ufficient information [was] presented to the magistrate to allow that official to determine probable cause; his action cannot be a mere ratification of the bare conclusions of others. This case involves exactly that mere ratification that Leon says wont suffice. Given the clarity of Leon on this point, coming straight from the U.S. Supreme Court, it seems strange to me to apply Davis instead based on the conclusory decision in Overton.

Second, even if Leon applies instead of Davis, its not obvious to me that suppression is an available remedy. The problem, it seems to me, is that arrests generally dont require warrants. Unlike searches, they generally require only probable cause. Given that, its not clear to me that a defective arrest warrant makes a difference. If the police have probable cause, they could make the arrest without a warrant. In such circumstances, I dont see how the arrest violates the Fourth Amendment (as compared to the warrant) if the police also obtain a warrant that is defective. Probable cause authorizes the arrest, not the warrant, so a search incident to arrest should be okay. Granted, in Hoffman, its not clear that the police actually had probable cause. It looks like the officers relied mostly on the warrant in the suppression hearing rather than making the case for probable cause directly. Either way, probable cause is the real issue.

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.

The rest is here:

Volokh Conspiracy: Magistrate issues arrest warrants for 17 years but is new to probable cause

Call Yourself a Hacker and Lose Fourth Amendment Rights
By: Tech Feed Net Published on Nov 2, 2013 Call yourself a hacker and lose your 4th amendment rights, Congress responds to NSA diplomat spying, the USA FREED...

By: redteamusa

The rest is here:

Call Yourself a Hacker and Lose Fourth Amendment Rights - Video

Fourth Amendment
Leave a like please.

By: Dfigster

Link:

Fourth Amendment - Video

Fourth Amendment,amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States, part of the Bill of Rights, that forbids unreasonable searches and seizures of individuals and property. For the text of the Fourth Amendment, see below.

Introduced in 1789, what became the Fourth Amendment struck at the heart of a matter central to the early American experience: the principle that, within reason, Every mans house is his castle, and that any citizen may fall into the category of the criminally accused and ought to be provided protections accordingly. In U.S. constitutional law, the Fourth Amendment is the foundation of criminal law jurisprudence, articulating both the rights of persons and the responsibilities of law-enforcement officials. The balance between these two forces has undergone considerable public, political, and judicial debate. Are the amendments two clauses meant to be applied independently or taken as a whole? Is the expectation of privacy diminished depending on where and what is suspected, sought, and seized? What constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure?

The protections contained in the amendment have been determined less on the basis of what the Constitution says than according to what it has been interpreted to mean, and, as such, its constitutional meaning has inherently been fluid. The protections granted by the U.S. Supreme Court have expanded during periods when the court was dominated by liberals (e.g., during the tenure of Chief Justice Earl Warren [195369]), beginning particularly with Mapp v. Ohio (1961), in which the court extended the exclusionary rule to all criminal proceedings; by contrast, during the tenure of the conservative William Rehnquist (19862005) as chief justice, the court contracted the rights afforded to the criminally accused, allowing law-enforcement officials latitude to search in instances when they reasonably believed that the property in question harboured presumably dangerous persons.

The full text of the amendment is:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Continued here:

Fourth Amendment (United States Constitution ...

A protest against government surveillance in Washington DC. Civil liberties groups denounced the FBIs move as brazen and potentially dangerous. Photograph: Xinhua /Landov/Barcroft Media

The FBI is attempting to persuade an obscure regulatory body in Washington to change its rules of engagement in order to seize significant new powers to hack into and carry out surveillance of computers throughout the US and around the world.

Civil liberties groups warn that the proposed rule change amounts to a power grab by the agency that would ride roughshod over strict limits to searches and seizures laid out under the fourth amendment of the US constitution, as well as violate first amendment privacy rights. They have protested that the FBI is seeking to transform its cyber capabilities with minimal public debate and with no congressional oversight.

The regulatory body to which the Department of Justice has applied to make the rule change, the advisory committee on criminal rules, will meet for the first time on November 5 to discuss the issue. The panel will be addressed by a slew of technology experts and privacy advocates concerned about the possible ramifications were the proposals allowed to go into effect next year.

This is a giant step forward for the FBIs operational capabilities, without any consideration of the policy implications. To be seeking these powers at a time of heightened international concern about US surveillance is an especially brazen and potentially dangerous move, said Ahmed Ghappour, an expert in computer law at University of California, Hastings college of the law, who will be addressing next weeks hearing.

The proposed operating changes related to rule 41 of the federal rules of criminal procedure, the terms under which the FBI is allowed to conduct searches under court-approved warrants. Under existing wording, warrants have to be highly focused on specific locations where suspected criminal activity is occurring and approved by judges located in that same district.

But under the proposed amendment, a judge can issue a warrant that would allow the FBI to hack into any computer, no matter where it is located. The change is designed specifically to help federal investigators carry out surveillance on computers that have been anonymized that is, their location has been hidden using tools such as Tor.

The amendment inserts a clause that would allow a judge to issue warrants to gain remote access to computers located within or outside that district (emphasis added) in cases in which the district where the media or information is located has been concealed through technological means. The expanded powers to stray across district boundaries would apply to any criminal investigation, not just to terrorist cases as at present.

Were the amendment to be granted by the regulatory committee, the FBI would have the green light to unleash its capabilities known as network investigative techniques on computers across America and beyond. The techniques involve clandestinely installing malicious software, or malware, onto a computer that in turn allows federal agents effectively to control the machine, downloading all its digital contents, switching its camera or microphone on or off, and even taking over other computers in its network.

This is an extremely invasive technique, said Chris Soghoian, principal technologist of the American Civil Liberties Union, who will also be addressing the hearing. We are talking here about giving the FBI the green light to hack into any computer in the country or around the world.

More:

FBI demands new powers to hack into computers and carry out surveillance

EL MONTE POLICE OFFICER VIOLATES ARMY VETERAN #39;S FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHT
EL MONTE POLICE OFFICER VIOLATES AMY VETERAN #39;S FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHT. UNLAWFUL AND ILLEGAL SEARCH.

By: Wheel Dynaimcs

Original post:

EL MONTE POLICE OFFICER VIOLATES ARMY VETERAN'S FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHT - Video

A Judge in Columbia ruled that providing law enforcement with access to an entire email account in an investigation did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures of property.

The order Friday by Chief Judge Richard W. Roberts of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colombia reversed an earlier decision by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola who refused to allow a two-step procedure whereby law enforcement is provided all emails relating to a target account, and is then allowed to examine the emails at a separate location to identify evidence.

The striking down of Judge Facciola's ruling will likely fuel the privacy debate in the country. A New York judge defended last month his order that gave the government access to all content of the Gmail account of a target in a money laundering investigation.

Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held that courts have long recognized the practical need for law enforcement to seize documents if only to determine whether they fall within the warrant.

The opinion was at odds with decisions by judges in several courts, Judge Gorenstein noted.

In his review, Judge Roberts appears to have taken a similar view on the issue as Judge Gorenstein in New York.

Judge Roberts wrote that the two-step process is in compliance with the Fourth Amendment and the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41. Asking a service provider to execute a search warrant could pose problems, as non-government employees, untrained in the details of criminal investigation, likely lack the requisite skills and expertise to determine whether a document is relevant to the investigation, he wrote.

Judge Gorenstein had also rejected the option of getting the email host to search the emails, stating that Google employees would not be able to figure the significance of particular emails.

Judge Facciola had earlier ruled that probable cause had not been established for all of the large quantities of emails the government wanted to seize, and recommended that the service provider, in this case Apple, should be asked to search for the relevant mails, rather than handing over all the information to government officials.

"What the government proposes is that this Court issue a general warrant that would allow a 'general, exploratory rummaging in a person's belongings'--in this case an individual's e-mail account," Judge Facciola wrote in March.

View original post here:

US court rules in favor of providing officials access to entire email account

Philadelphia, PA (PRWEB) October 22, 2014

The Third Circuit in U.S. v. Katzin, 2014 U.S. Dist. WL 4851779 (3d Cir. Oct. 1, 2014), reversed its prior decision of the split three-judge panel and ruled that "...when the agents acted, they did so upon an objectively reasonable good-faith belief in the legality of their conduct, and that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule therefore applies."

In the Katzin case, suspecting the defendants of committing various burglaries, police, without a warrant, installed a GPS onto their van, leading to their apprehension. Almost two years later, the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Jones, 463 U.S. 354 (2012) ruled that this exact conduct needed a warrant. A three judge panel of the Third Circuit then held that the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant to install a GPS device on a suspects car. U.S. v. Katzin,732 F. 3d 187 (3d Cir. 2013). Prior to Jones, the Supreme Court had ruled that installing surveillance devices was not necessarily a Fourth Amendment violation. See U.S. v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984) and U.S. v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983). The question before the en banc panel, therefore, was whether the police in Katzin were reasonably relying on these precedents to justify the legality of attaching the GPS device. The en banc panel in Katzin relied upon the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Davis v. U.S., 131 S.Ct. 2419 (2011), which held that the good faith exception applies when the police were reasonably relying on binding precedent. Prior to Jones, the Supreme Court had ruled that installing surveillance devices was not necessarily a Fourth Amendment violation.

Ms. Lefeber explains that the Katzin decision effectively eviscerates any Fourth Amendment protection because it creates a good-faith exception to the suppression of ill-gotten evidence.

Judge D. Brooks Smith, similarly, wrote in his dissent:

"The majority's good-faith analysis is flawed because it finds that, where the law is unsettled, law enforcement may engage in constitutionally reckless conduct and still reap the benefits of the good-faith exception. Fourth Amendment jurisprudence dictates a different outcome. When the law is unsettled, law enforcement should not travel the road of speculation, but rather they should demonstrate respect for the constitutional mandateobtain a warrant. Anything less would require suppression." Katzin, Ibid.

About Hope Lefeber:

In practice since 1979, Lefeber is an experienced and aggressive criminal defense attorney in Philadelphia. As a former Enforcement Attorney for the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission, Lefeber uses the knowledge she gained while working for the government to best defend her clients facing serious state and federal charges related to drug offenses and white collar crime, including business and corporate fraud, mail and wire fraud, money laundering, financial and securities fraud, and tax fraud. A member of the invitation-only National Trial Lawyers Top 100, Lefeber has been recognized by Thomson Reuters as a 2014 Super Lawyer. She has represented high-profile clients, published numerous articles, lectured on federal criminal law issues, taught Continuing Legal Education classes to other Philadelphia criminal defense attorneys and has been quoted by various media outlets, from TV news to print publications.

Learn more at http://www.hopelefeber.com/

Originally posted here:

Third Circuit Allows Evidence from Warrantless GPS Device

The Supreme Court is weighing in on another Fourth Amendment privacy case, this one concerning a Los Angeles ordinance requiring hotels to surrender guest registries to the police upon request without a warrant.

Thejustices agreed(PDF) Monday to hear Los Angeles' appeal of a lower court that ruled7-4 that the lawmeant to combat prostitution, gambling, and even terrorismwas unconstitutional. The law(PDF) requires hotels to provide the informationincluding guests' credit card number, home address, driver's license information, and vehicle license numberat a moment's notice. Several dozen cities, from Atlanta to Seattle, have similar ordinances.

"The Supreme Court will consider both the scope of privacy protections for hotel guests and also whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits laws that allow unlawful searches," EPIC wrote. "The second issue has far-reaching consequences because many recent laws authorize the police searches without judicial review. Thus far, courts have only considered "as applied" challenges on a case-by-case basis."

The appeal is the third high-profile Fourth Amendment case the justices have taken in three years.

In 2012, the justices ruled that authorities generally need search warrants when they affix GPS devices to a vehicle. And earlier this year, the Supreme Court said that the authorities need warrants to peek into the mobile phones of suspects they arrest.

In the latest case,Los Angeles motel owners sued, claiming that the law was a violation of their rights. The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the motel owners in December and said the only documentsthey must disclose include a hotel's proprietary pricing and occupancy information.

Businesses do not ordinarily disclose, and are not expected to disclose, the kind of commercially sensitive information contained in the records, Judge Paul Watford wrote for the majority. He said a hotel has "the right to exclude others from prying into the contents of its records."

In dissent, Judge Richard Clifton wrote that neither the hotel nor the guest has an expectation of privacy."A guest's information is even less personal to the hotel than it is to the guest," Clifton said.

In arguing to the justices that they should review the majority's conclusion, Los Angeles city officials wrote(PDF), "These laws expressly help police investigate crimes such as prostitution and gambling, capture dangerous fugitives and even authorize federal law enforcement to examine these registers, an authorization which can be vital in the immediate aftermath of a homeland terrorist attack."

Thehigh court did not set a hearing date.

Go here to read the rest:

Supreme Court to decide if cops can access hotel registries without warrants

Your computer, phone, and other digital devices hold vast amounts of personal information about you and your family. This sensitive data is worth protecting from prying eyes, including those of the government.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects you from unreasonable government searches and seizures, and this protection extends to your computer and portable devices. But how does this work in the real world? What should you do if the police or other law enforcement officers show up at your door and want to search your computer?

EFF has designed this guide to help you understand your rights if officers try to search the data stored on your computer or portable electronic device, or seize it for further examination somewhere else. Keep in mind that the Fourth Amendment is the minimum standard, and your specific state may have stronger protections.

Because anything you say can be used against you in a criminal or civil case, before speaking to any law enforcement official, you should consult with an attorney. Remember generally the fact that you assert your rights cannot legally be used against you in court. You can always state: "I do not want to talk to you or answer any questions without my attorney present." If they continue to ask you questions after that point, you can say: "Please don't ask me any further questions until my attorney is present." And if the police violate your rights and conduct an illegal search, often the evidence they obtain as a result of that search can't be used against you.

We've organized this guide into three sections:

If you consent to a search, the police don't need a warrant.

The most frequent ways police are able to search is by asking you for permission. If you say "yes" and consent to the search, then police don't need a warrant. You can limit the scope of that consent and even revoke or take it back after the officers begin searching, but by then it may be too late.1 That's why it's better not consent to a searchpolice may drop the matter. If not, then they will generally need to get a search warrant to search.

Law enforcement may show up at your door. Apart from a few exceptions, police need a warrant to enter your home.

The police can't simply enter your home to search it or any electronic device inside, like a laptop or cell phone, without a warrant.

Link:

When Can the Police Search Your Phone and Computer?