Archive for the ‘Fourth Amendment’ Category

Constitution and Fourth Amendment – Gettysburg Times

The Fourth Amendment states, "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." Pretty straightforward, right? It was, until something labeled the "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act" (FISA). Today, every electronic communication of every kind -- e-mail, telephone conversation, radio or TV communication, in any medium -- is routinely overheard, recorded, stored and available for use against any American citizen by the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the IRS, the Social Security Administration and every information and intelligence gathering agency government-wide. Your cell phone isn't just a telephone any more: it's a GPS for government trackers; it stores your phone records and conversations; and the "your" telephone company routinely provides that Government whatever it asks about what we say, to whom, and when. So do our computers. The result? There is no longer any reasonable expectation of privacy, anywhere, anytime, for anyone.

One might ask, "How did this come to be?" In 1978, under President Jimmy Carter, Congress enacted something called the "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act" (FISA), whose nominal purpose was to enable the federal government to eavesdrop, wiretap, or otherwise capture the contents of communications and/or conversations involving people from other nations around the world whom our government believed might be plotting or conspiring to do America harm. Of course, some of those nefarious plotters might also be doing so in conjunction with Americans; therefore, it was necessary to "listen in" on everyone, lest our defenders in the intelligence community not be able to detect all they could. Which in turn meant that a mechanism needed to exist to honor the 4th Amendment - if only in form. Thus came about what is now known as the "FISA Court," whose two-fold purpose was to approve the "listening" while maintaining a cover for violating the 4th Amendment, and appearing to provide protection for American citizens against the very Government behavior things that Court was approving. (No, it doesn't make sense, but it's the way it is.) All this, of course, was long before cell phones, personal computers, laptops and even the internet.

Human nature being what it is, whatever Big Government can get away with, small government will follow. So now we have all kinds of electronic surveillance, 24/7, on everyone throughout the land, from the White House all the way to City Hall. For those readers familiar with George Orwell, "1984" is alive and well; and, yes, Big Brother is watching. And listening. And recording. And waiting -- to use whatever he has against anyone. It's no longer science-fiction; it's fact - and describes that part of the Intelligence community that has come to be labeled the "Deep State."

Again, human nature being what it is, and humans being the inherently curious political animals that we are, some in the intelligence community have turned their authorizations from guarding against our external threats, to attacking and destroying those they perceive as partisan political enemies - further violating the 4th Amendment, both in spirit and in fact.

All of this is not only in direct violation of the 4th Amendment, it's totally destructive to a free and open, self-governing society, i.e., our founding principles. If the Founders and Framers didn't want the Crown spying on us, why do we allow our government - at every level - to? For better security? Ben Franklin said it well: "Those who trade freedom for security deserve neither."

What can We, the People, do to turn this around? Obviously, trusting the Government to correct itself makes no sense at all - governments, by their very nature, acquire power; they neither share nor yield. But, we still have in place a (somewhat) representative governmental structure; why not make it truly representative? Yes, it means paying closer attention to what that government is actually doing. And it means paying even closer attention to how what it does affects us, both currently and down the road. And it means paying even more attention to knowing whether what those who claim to want to represent us will actually do that, or fall into more of the internecine partisanship that wins political victories but destroys the fabric of our Republic. It means, as Plato warned 2,500 years ago, that We, the People, must get involved and participate in this self-governance project; otherwise we'll simply continue transitioning to its opposite, i.e., tyranny. And we see tyranny blossoming everywhere, from schools to governments and everywhere in between, largely because We, the People, have assumed the best - and enabled the worst.

Remember, the Constitution neither guarantees nor enforces our rights and protections; it simply affirms them, and functions as a mechanism for us to exercise and protect them ourselves. Government, by its very nature, neither shares nor yields power; it takes it. That's why Thomas Jefferson's "In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution," is so important. Bud Nason lives in Littlestown, is a Conservative Thinker and an Adams County Voter. E-mail him at budnason@aol.com.

The rest is here:
Constitution and Fourth Amendment - Gettysburg Times

With Cell Phone Record Case on SCOTUS Horizon, Originalist Analysis on IV Amendment Is Helpful – CNSNews.com

With Cell Phone Record Case on SCOTUS Horizon, Originalist Analysis on IV Amendment Is Helpful
CNSNews.com
On June 5, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case involving Fourth Amendment protections for cell phone records, Carpenter v. U.S. This case features a much-criticized judicial creation called the third-party doctrine and how it applies to an ...

See the rest here:
With Cell Phone Record Case on SCOTUS Horizon, Originalist Analysis on IV Amendment Is Helpful - CNSNews.com

‘How Far Can They Go?’ Police Search of Hundreds of Students Stokes Lawsuit and Constitutional Questions – New York Times


New York Times
'How Far Can They Go?' Police Search of Hundreds of Students Stokes Lawsuit and Constitutional Questions
New York Times
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees people's right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, and a series of court decisions has laid the groundwork for ...

and more »

Continue reading here:
'How Far Can They Go?' Police Search of Hundreds of Students Stokes Lawsuit and Constitutional Questions - New York Times

Highland case a Fourth Amendment victory: Guest commentary – San Bernardino County Sun

The doorbell to the home you are renting rings. You open it to find a city code enforcement officer asking to do an interior inspection. The officer unveils a list of 80 items to check. There will be snooping through cupboards and drawers, bathrooms, bedrooms and closets.

You feel extremely uncomfortable with the idea of a stranger rummaging through your home, and you wonder why the city feels its needed. After all, if theres a problem with the property, all you need to do is call the owner. It you dont get satisfaction, you could contact code enforcement at that point.

So, you politely tell the officer, I do not want you to inspect the inside of my home.

The officer responds that the inspection is required by city law, and the owner will get in trouble if you dont let me in.

You reply, Im sorry, but without a warrant you cannot come in.

This is a true story, showing how the tenants in a Highland rental home that I own became caught up in the citys systematic assault on privacy rights.

Highland developed a plan to inspect all 4,800 residenti al rentals, whether or not there were any issues with the properties. Officials also decided to cut corners and not seek judicial approval to enter dwellings. Instead, they would pressure owners and renters to allow inspectors in.

My tenants certainly had no complaints about their rental home; it is well-maintained, as with all my properties. They had no reason to want officials intruding on their privacy, so they refused to agree to the inspection, as did I.

The city responded by issuing me a fine, and withholding my rental license in order to force me to comply.

Some property owners might have given in at that point, unwilling to fight city hall. But I have a strong reverence for the Constitution and Americas heritage of liberty, and I was determined not to let the citys coercion go unchallenged. Along with my tenants, I filed a lawsuit in federal court, represented free of charge by Pacific Legal Foundation, a watchdog organization for property rights and individual liberty.

Our case rested on the Fourth Amendment freedom from unreasonable searches. This is a core liberty, part of the Bill of Rights. It reads as follows:

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.

You dont need to be a legal scholar to interpret these words. In order for a government agent to enter a private home without permission, a warrant must be obtained.

Advertisement

The good news is that, in the wake of our lawsuit, the city has now repealed its invasive inspection scheme, replacing it with an owners self-inspection program. Highland can now focus enforcement resources on the small number of real problem cases, instead of unnecessarily disturbing the privacy of rental-home residents.

Tenants are customers. Like any business, if you dont take care of your customers they will give their business to someone else. Rental owners want happy, long-term tenants. That is why the vast majority of owners do a good job taking care of their customers.

Whether you own or rent, the Fourth Amendment protects you from warrantless searches of your personal effects, in your private home. It is a precious liberty that we should all cherish.

Unfortunately, Highland is far from alone in imposing oppressive, unjustified search and inspection schemes for rental homes. But the victory that my tenants and I have achieved in Highland should send a message to cities throughout California: They need to bring their code enforcement into conformity with the Constitution.

Karl J. Trautwein, a resident of San Juan Capistrano, owns rental homes in Highland and other Southern California communities.

Read more here:
Highland case a Fourth Amendment victory: Guest commentary - San Bernardino County Sun

Brushing up on landmark Fourth Amendment cases – Land Line Magazine

June 8, 2017

The law dictates when enforcement officers need a warrant for searches and when they dont. Where do the protections of the Fourth Amendment apply and where do they not.

Technologys rapidly changing capabilities present a constant need for constitutional protections to be guided by updated rule of law.

In June 2014, the Supreme Court expanded the law to address privacy concerns in the digital age. In Riley v. California, the justices decided a warrant is needed to search cellphones seized from someone who has been arrested. They knew when they ruled that they werent just talking about a flip phone with a few photos and a contact list. It was a landmark ruling.

In that 2014 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: The term cell phone is itself misleading shorthand; many of these devices are in fact minicomputers that also happen to have the capacity to be used as a telephone. They could just as easily be called cameras, video players, rolodexes, calendars, tape recorders, libraries, diaries, albums, televisions, maps or newspapers.

Roberts likened it to ransacking a persons home. Indeed, a cellphone search would typically expose to the government far more than the most exhaustive search of a house: A phone not only contains in digital form many sensitive records previously found in the home; it also contains a broad array of private information never found in a home in any form.

An example he gave: past location information, now a standard feature.

The court will decide whether law enforcement authorities need a warrant to gather cellphone data from cellphone companies.

The case, Carpenter v. U.S., involves a convicted robber named Timothy Carpenter, who was found guilty partly on the basis of months of cellphone location records turned over without a warrant.

The justices know that technology now gives government the ability to rummage through more than cars, closets, bedroom drawers and smartphone photos. Technology gives enforcement the ability to look at a persons entire life, personal and otherwise, under an amazingly invasive digital microscope. Where and when do you need a warrant for that?

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court conferences on 159 petitions for review and OOIDAs ELD mandate case is one of them. How does OOIDAs ELD case relate? Youve probably already put the dots together. The issues differ fromthose in OOIDAs ELD case. But the courts interest in the gathering of data from electronic devices is significant.

See more here:
Brushing up on landmark Fourth Amendment cases - Land Line Magazine