Mediaboss Marketing

This week, we filed anamicus brief in a South Dakota case arguing that the Fourth Amendment prohibits the police from surreptitiously collecting our DNA without a warrant. This case is one of the first to challenge the collection of DNA from a free person after results of a genetic genealogy database search linked her to a crime.

In the case, prosecutors have charged Teresa Bentaas, a lifelong Sioux Falls resident, with first degree murder for abandoning a newborn 39 years ago. To link Ms. Bentaas to the baby, police secretly collected her DNA from items they found in her trash, extracted and sequenced it, and then compared it to the babys. Ms. Bentaas was not under arrest or in police custody at the time they collected and searched her DNA, so, unlike an arrestee, there can be no argument her Fourth Amendment rights were in any way diminished.

Ms. Bentaass attorneys have filed amotion to suppress the DNA evidence and all evidence collected by the police after that, arguing this secret and warrantless rummaging and data collection violates the Fourth Amendment and South Dakotas state constitutional equivalent. EFF, joined by the ACLU and ACLU of South Dakota, filed a brief in support.

Prosecutors claim that the Fourth Amendment doesnt apply in this context because Ms. Bentaas abandoned her privacy interest in her DNA when she left it behind on the items she threw out in her trash. However, we argue the Fourth Amendment creates a high bar against collecting DNA from free people, even if its found on items the person has voluntarily discarded. In 1978, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment does not protect the contents of peoples trash left for pickup because they have abandoned an expectation of privacy in the trash. But unlike a gum wrapper or a cigarette butt, our DNA contains so much private information that the data contained in a DNA sample can never be abandoned. Even if police dont need a warrant to rummage through your trash (and many states disagree on this point), Police should need a warrant to rummage through your DNA.

A DNA samplewhether taken directly from a person or extracted from items that person leaves behindcontains a persons entire genetic makeup. It can reveal intensely sensitive information about us, including our propensities for certain medical conditions, our ancestry, and our biological familial relationships. Some researchers have also claimed that human behaviors such as aggression and addiction can be explained, at least in part, by genetics. And private companies have claimed they can use our DNA for everything from identifying our eye, hair, and skin colors and the shapes of our faces; to determining whether we are lactose intolerant, prefer sweet or salty foods, and can sleep deeply; to discovering the likely migration patterns of our ancestors and the identities of family members we never even knew we had.

Despite the uniquely revealing nature of DNA, we cannot avoid leaving behind the whole of our genetic code wherever we go. Humans are constantly shedding genetic material; In less time than it takes to order a coffee, most humans lose nearly enough skin cells to cover an entire football field. The only way to avoid depositing our DNA on nearly every item we touch out in the world would be to never leave ones home. For these reasons, as we argue in our brief, we can never abandon a privacy interest in our DNA.

The Bentaas case also raises thorny Fourth Amendment issues related to law enforcement use of genetic genealogy databases, which South Dakota police used earlier in their investigation to try to find a genetic connection to the deceased baby. Weve written about these issues before. In the Bentaas case, the police exhumed the body of the infant, extracted a DNA sample from the remains, and then worked with a private company called Parabon Nanolabs to search through the consumer genetic genealogy database GEDmatch, to try to find a connection between the infants DNA and GEDmatch users. Parabon wasnt able to find a close relative but did identify two individuals who could have been between sixth to eighth degree relations. A police officer then did his own research on public data websites to try to find a potential suspect. He settled on Ms. Bentaas and her husband, both potential biological matches, and then surreptitiously collected DNA samples from items he found in their trash.

This process of searching genetic genealogy databases in criminal investigations has become quite common. More than 26 million people have used genetic genealogy databases like GEDmatch to identify biological relatives and build a family tree, and law enforcement officers have been capitalizing on all that freely available data in criminal investigations across the country. Estimates are that genetic genealogy sites were used in around 200 cases just last year. For many of those cases, like this one, officers never sought a warrant or any legal process at all before searching that private database.

Police access to this data creates immeasurable threats to our privacy. It also puts us at much greater risk of being accused of crimes we didnt commit. For example, in 2015, a similar forensic genetic genealogy search led police to suspect an innocent man. Even without genetic genealogy searches, DNA matches may lead officers to suspectand jailthe wrong person, as happened in a California case in 2012. That can happen because our DNA may be transferred from one location to another, possibly ending up at the scene of a crime, even if we were never there.

Even if you yourself never upload your genetic data to a genetic genealogy website, your privacy could be impacted by a distant family members choice to do so. Although GEDmatchs 1.3 million users only encompass about 0.5% of the U.S. adult population, research shows that their data alone could be used to identify 60% of white Americans. And once GEDmatchs users encompass just 2% of the U.S. population, 90% of white Americans will be identifiable. Other research has shown that adversaries may be able to compromise these databases to put many users at risk of having their genotypes revealed, either at key positions or at many sites genome-wide.

This is why this case is so importantand why we need strong rules against police access to genetic genealogy databases. Our DNA can reveal so much about us that our genetic privacy must be protected at all costs. We hope the South Dakota court and other courts addressing this issue will recognize that the Fourth Amendment protects us from surreptitious collection and searches of our DNA.

Excerpt from:
Police May Not Need a Warrant to Rummage Through Your Trash, But Warrantless Collection of DNA Is Unconstitutional - EFF

In the aftermath of the McDonald's Monopoly scandal from the 1990s one of the biggest fast-foodscandals in American historythe major players and prize "winners" were handed minimum sentences for their white-collar crimes. And asseveral participants hadclean records prior to the charges of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, it was enough to keep them on the straight and narrow.

But what about the more experienced criminals in the group? As detailed in HBO's docu-series "McMillion$," in order for the scheme to work and attract people who needed the cash prizes, those familiar with bending the law were a vital component to the scam.

The McDonald's Monopoly crime ringwas led by Jerome Jacobson, the ex-cop who managed to rig the game through most of the '90sand helped a group of "winners" steal over $24 million from the company. Participants ranged from experienced mobsters to average citizens whowould benefit greatly from big cash winnings.

Andrew Glomb joined the heist shortly after mob boss Gennaro Colombo died in 1998. An ex-con and former drug dealer fresh off probation, hewas responsible for distributing winning tickets and expanding the "winners" network for Jacobson. So where is he now?

Well, today, Glomb hasseemingly kept his head down andavoided all trouble with the law.

"I have been a 'good boy!'" Glomb told Oxygen.com in an email.

As depicted in the docu-series, Glomb's first foray into crimewas while doing drugs in1979 with best-selling author Harold Robbins. Recalling that in Robbins'novels characters would inhale amyl nitrate before engaging insexual activity, Glomb asked if he could try some. He subsequently panicked at the reaction his body had, even calling a friend to get him out of the party.

Shortly thereafter, his cousin asked if he could get him quaaludes, and he deferred to the friend he called during his moment of panic after his first drug experience.Realizing the money to be made in this "business," Glomb became a drugtrafficker in Florida, according to "McMillion$."

His drug enterprise was relatively short-lived. On Sept. 10, 1983, while traveling from Miami to Dallas with 8.9 ounces of pure cocaine to deliver to his co-conspirators, several federal agents arrested him outside a Pan American terminal at the Dallas/Fort Worth Regional Airport. On Dec. 6, he entered a conditional plea of guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute, according to his public case profile.

In February 1984, he was sentenced to 12years confinement plus a $15,000 fine. He entered the plea on the condition that he be able to appeal the question of whetherhis fourth amendment rights were violated, as he was seized without a warrant, according to the case profile.

But rather than report to the Montgomery Federal Prison as instructed on March 20, 1984, Glomb fled the country and went on a 16-month tour of Europe.

"You're always worried looking over your shoulder every time you see two guys with suits on, you think it's over," Glomb explained in the documentary.

He was finally arrested in 1985 at a San Diego doughnut shop after shipping a car in his name to Long Beach and had toservethe entirety of his jail sentence, as detailed in his case profile.

By the time he was contacted about the McDonald's crime circuit, Glomb had recently gottenoffparole.

"I was very skeptical," Glomb said in the docu-series. "I said, 'I don't think I want to know anything about it.' And then probably two or three days later, I said, 'You know what? Let's meet and we'll talk about it.'"

Glomb was presented with a $1 million winning piece, which he then gave to a friend to split between the two of them and Jacobson.

Glomb made winners out of friends he had made while dealing drugs and serving his prison sentence. In1999, one of the $1 million winners was a convicted cocaine distributor, according to The Daily Beast.

Glomb was ultimately arrested on August 22, 2001. He was convicted of mail fraud and conspiracy and sentenced to a year and one day in prison,theoutlet reports.

Today, Glomb haskept quietand continues to payrestitution fees of $164.70 per month, according to the docu-series.Glomb also still keeps in touch with Jacobson, now in his late 70s and in poor health. He noted in his interview with The Daily Beast that whereas some may be bitter about the sentence, he understands that what he did was wrong.

"It was a game, and I lost," he said in the docu-series.

But when asked if he would do it again in "McMillion$," Glomb quickly responded: "Tomorrow."

Get all your true crime news from Oxygen. Coverage of the latest true crime stories and famous cases explained, as well as the best TV shows, movies and podcasts in the genre. And don't miss our own podcast, Martinis & Murder!

View original post here:
'I Have Been A Good Boy!' Andrew Glomb Says Of Life After McDonald's Monopoly Scandal - Oxygen

The cold case murder of Cedar Rapids teenager Michelle Martinko went unsolved for decades, until last month, when prosecutors won a guilty conviction by relying on 40-year-old crime scene and a family genealogy website. Its one of the first cases of its kind to go to trial but its raising questions about ethics and legality.

It was 1979, the week before Christmas when 18-year-old Michelle Martinko went to a brand new mall in Cedar Rapids to pick up a winter coat. But she never made it home that night; she was found stabbed to death in her parents Buick in the mall parking lot.

With no murder weapon and no clear motive, Martinkos killing haunted Cedar Rapids residents for decades. Generations of police officers worked the case.

They tested and retested DNA evidence that the male suspect left at the crime scene, but never got a match in the FBIs DNA database.

Then in 2018, they heard about a new tool. With the help of the private genetics firm Parabon NanoLabs, officers uploaded the suspects genetic profile to a public genealogy website called GEDmatch.

The site is somewhat similar to the better-known 23andMe or ancestry.com. Its a favorite of people looking for long-lost relatives, and unlike the other services its free to use.

After nearly 40 years of investigating, officers got a hit on GEDmatch: a distant cousin living in Washington State.

From there, the private firm built a family tree of potential suspects and officers began the tedious task of tracking them down, secretly following the men, waiting for them to throw away something they could test for DNA.

For 64-year-old Jerry Burns, it was a straw he used at a pizza restaurant in Manchester, Iowa.

Thirty-nine years to the day after Martinko was killed, Officer Matt Denlinger and his partner J.D. Smith questioned Burns, in the city where hed lived his whole life, just an hour from the crime scene.

They secretly recorded the interaction.

Did you murder someone that night, Jerry? Denlinger asked the man.

Test the DNA, Burns said.

Jerry, Denlinger continued.

Test the DNA, he replied.

Why did this happen Jerry? Denlinger questioned.

Test the DNA, he said again.

What happened? the officer asked.

I dont know, Burns replied.

Last month, a jury convicted Burns of first degree murder based on the DNA evidence. Burns case is thought to be just the third in the country to go to trial.

"I see a utility in this, I do. But right now it's like the Wild, Wild West where people just kind of doing what they do, because there are no rules." State Sen. Charles Sydnor, D-Md.

Other similar cases, including that of the alleged Golden State Killer in California, are at various stages of investigation or are awaiting trial. The high-profile California case made national news in April 2018, when officers tracked down the accused serial killer after testing his trash for DNA. The development is considered a major breakthrough and has sparked similar investigations in other cases across the country.

But the use genetic genealogy by law enforcement officers remains controversial. In recent years, GEDmatch has changed its policies to alert users that investigators have an interest in the site. Where in the past police had access to the profiles of all of the sites approximately one million users, those users are now required to opt in if they want to participate in searches by police.

State lawmakers in several states are considering restricting police access to consumer DNA databases.

At first, State Sen. Charles Sydnor ,D-Md, wanted to ban the practice. But after advocates pushed back, hes seeking a compromise.

I see a utility in this, I do, Sydnor said. But right now its like the Wild, Wild West where people just kind of doing what they do, because there are no rules, Sydnor said.

There are some rules. The Department of Justice has put out guidance on how officers should use genetic genealogy. But its just that, guidance. And theres a lot of interest in this technology.

Parabon NanoLabs, which worked on the Burns case and is one of the go-to private contractors in the field, says theyve now worked with agencies in 47 states.

"We could set up a society where we catch every bad guy. But at the same time we would imprison ourselves to the government." - Michael Melendez, Libertas Institute

Consumer database searches are generally reserved for the hardest-to-solve violent crimes, often cold cases.

But sometimes investigators dont really know who theyre searching for, and dont have a warrant for their search.

Sydnors bill would put limitations on this practice, by restricting familial searches of genetic profiles to a smaller web of family members.

[In larger searches] youre implicating a number of people who havewhere theres absolutely no probable cause, they have nothing to do with whatever crime it is youre trying to solve but yet youre pulling their genetic information, Sydnor said.

Michael Melendez of the Libertarian think tank Libertas Institute has helped write a bill filed in Utah. He says he doesnt doubt that a larger scale of what some call genetic surveillance could help officers solve more crimes.

We could set up a society where we catch every bad guy, Melendez said. But at the same time we would imprison ourselves to the government.

"You can make an argument especially in light of recent Supreme Court precedent that obtaining information from either a public or a private database without a warrant is unconstitutional," - Christopher Slobogin, Vanderbilt University Law School

The practice of warrantless searches of the consumer databases also raises concerns for Christopher Slobogin, director of the Criminal Justice Program at the Vanderbilt University Law School.

Oh yeah, I think they definitely gotta get a warrant, Slobogin said. You can make an argument especially in light of recent Supreme Court precedent that obtaining information from either a public or a private database without a warrant is unconstitutional.

In fact, Jerry Burns lawyer argued that using the database in his case was an unconstitutional search and in violation of his Fourth Amendment privacy rights.

Legal experts say its the first time the constitutionality of these searches has been raised in court.

But the judge in the case shot it down citing whats known as the third party doctrine, writing that because GEDmatch users shared their DNA with a third party (GEDmatch), they do not have an expectation of privacy over that information.

In the 2018 case Carpenter v. United States, U.S. Supreme Court justices hinted they could re-examine modern privacy rights to digital information. But its not clear how that could impact these consumer databases.

In the meantime, Janelle Stonebraker is thankful that investigators have this option. She is the sister of Michelle Martinko, and said she had given up hope on seeing a resolution in the case when investigators called to let her know they would be re-examining the crime scene DNA.

"That of course, was an amazing revelation and reorienting of thought and feelings. Because who else could it have been all those years?" - Janelle Stonebraker, sister of Michelle Martinko

The use of genetics in the case led to elimination of more than a hundred potential suspects. For Stonebraker, that meant the exoneration of her sisters friends and ex-boyfriends, who had long been scrutinized by police.

That of course, was an amazing revelation and reorienting of thought and feelings. Because who else could it have been all those years, in our estimation, Stonebraker said.

Stonebraker said she is aware of the criticisms of the investigative method and has family members who are concerned about how genetic information could be used to discriminate against patients in healthcare settings.

I think always the technology is ahead of the law, she said. So I think it will all have to be looked at, they will have to analyze all of the permutations and misuses and see what is see what is necessary.

Another person thankful for this innovation in forensic investigation is Brandy Jennings. It was Jennings DNA that led officers to Jerry Burns in the first place. She says for her, privacy was never a concern.

I dont regret it. I dont think that its a bad thing. I dont think I wouldve chosen differently. You know, its kinda like one of those things, if you dont have anything to hide whats the big deal? she said. To me anyways.

Like 200,000 people on GEDmatch, Jennings has agreed to let officers use her DNA in their searches.

As of now theres not much stopping them from doing just that.

Continue reading here:
Police Used A Genealogy Website To Crack An Iowa Cold Case. The Tool Is Raising Concerns Elsewhere. - Iowa Public Radio

Just over a week ago, the Greyhound bus company announced that it would no longer allow Border Patrol agents to conduct immigration searches on its buses without a warrant. The company long maintained that while they didnt agree with the searches, they were bound by federal law to allow them.

Civil rights groups and immigrant rights advocates have appealed to the bus company over the past couple of years, urging Greyhound to refuse to comply with these checks, citing the Fourth Amendment right in the U.S. Constitution protecting people from unreasonable searches and seizures without a proper warrant. After the Associated Press obtained a memo written by the U.S. Border Patrols recently retired chief, confirming that bus companies like Greyhound are not required to consent to these checks, Greyhound announced that it would no longer allow the practice.

The American Civil Liberties Union has been among the groups that have applied pressure to Greyhound, with chapters in 10 states writing to the company in 2018 in an effort to get it to reverse the practice back then. In a recent email interview, David Loy, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial Counties, and Eva Bitran, staff attorney in the advocacy department of the ACLU of Southern California, offered some background on this issue and their insight into why advocacy groups have opposed these checks. (This interview has been edited for length and clarity.)

Q: What has been some of the history behind these immigration checks on buses?

Eva Bitran: We dont know precisely when the checks started, but reports of systematic, aggressive questioning of Greyhound passengers by CBP (U.S. Customs and Border Protection) agents date back to at least 2010. The basic story, which weve heard repeated throughout the border region, is that CBP officials board Greyhound buses without a warrant or a specific target in mind and subject customers to harassment and racial profiling, singling out riders based on the color of their skin, language they speak, or accent they have. (Reporters note: Border Patrol has been reported as saying that they do not profile passengers based on their appearance, and that they question all passengers during these searches.)

Q: How and when did the ACLU first learn of these immigration bus checks? What were the concerns the ACLU had about these checks? And what was the ACLUs response to those concerns?

Bitran: In early 2018, ACLU affiliates across the country started hearing reports of CBP presence on Greyhound buses, some of which gained national notoriety, as noted in our 2018 letter. These stories shared a familiar pattern. ... (and) These operations violate the constitutional rights of individuals detained without individualized reasonable suspicion. Because they take place on Greyhounds private property, we saw that Greyhound had an opportunity to protect its customers from racial profiling and harassment by CBP.

Our response was to draft a letter to Greyhound in 2018 documenting several incidents in 2017 and 2018 along the southern and northern borders, and the coasts asking it to exercise its own Fourth Amendment rights denying bus access to Border Patrol agents without a warrant. Greyhound initially declined to do so, and so we mounted a public campaign that included distributing KYR (Know Your Rights) material in bus stations and disseminating a petition that got over 200,000 signatures.

Q: Why has this practice been something that civil rights and immigration advocates have disagreed with?

David Loy: We objected to CBPs profiling and harassment because it violates the core constitutional rights against unlawful search and seizure and racial discrimination. The Constitution applies equally throughout the entire country. Like any law enforcement agency, CBP must adhere to the Constitution.

Q: Whats the response to the Border Patrols argument that the checks help prevent human trafficking, drugs and illegal immigration?

Loy: The Constitution is consistent with effective law enforcement. Law enforcement agencies have ample means to prevent and address illegal activity without violating the Constitution. Racial profiling and unlawful harassment undermine the community trust essential to effective law enforcement.

Q: Who would you say has been most impacted by this practice, and why does that matter?

Loy: Everyone riding Greyhound buses has been impacted by CBPs unlawful harassment, but those most impacted are persons of color and persons speaking languages other than English, or with accents assumed to be foreign. Such persons may be U.S. citizens or lawful residents, but even if they are not, they retain fundamental constitutional rights against racial profiling and unlawful search and seizure.

Q: Why should people, whether they travel by bus or what their citizenship status may be, be concerned about these kinds of bus searches?

Loy: Everyone is at risk when anyones constitutional rights are violated. Unless law enforcement is held accountable to its duty to adhere to the Constitution, the violation of one communitys rights inevitably leads to violation of everyones rights. History shows that abuses of power begin with marginalized and vulnerable communities, but they rarely stop there.

View original post here:
An end to immigration checks on Greyhound buses reaffirms Fourth Amendment argument from civil rights groups - The San Diego Union-Tribune

Following the November 2019 revisions to life and non-life insurance investment regulations, Thailands Office of Insurance Commission (OIC) has published a fourth amendment to the regulations, which came into effect on 29 January 2020. Key revisions are summarized below.

(1) New definitions introduced. To support wider investment opportunities presented in this amendment, and to provide more clarity, certain new definitions are introduced, including overseas financial institution, infrastructure, and private equity, and also definitions regarding derivatives and the healthcare businesses.

Some of the existing definitions have also been revised. These include sukuk, investment unit, and investable asset.

(2) Wider investment opportunities. The fourth amendment allows insurers to invest in private equity, real estate, mutual funds and infrastructure trusts. More importantly, insurers are now allowed to hold shares of an entity offering:

(3) Other key changes. Other changes are also addressed in this fourth amendment, including requirements on:

This amendment expands the investment options for insurers, providing more flexibility and potentially facilitating insurers risk allocation. Insurers are urged to familiarize themselves with these changes to ensure compliance, and to maximize investment opportunities.

Business Law Digest is compiled with the assistance of Baker McKenzie. Readers should not act on this information without seeking professional legal advice. You can contact Baker McKenzie by emailing Danian Zhang at [emailprotected].

Read this article:
Fourth amendment to Thailand investment regulations - Vantage Asia