Mediaboss Marketing

Law Enforcement Should Not Be Able to Bypass the Fourth Amendment to Search Your Devices

Sending your computer to Best Buy for repairs shouldnt require you to surrender your Fourth Amendment rights. But thats apparently whats been happening when customers send their computers to a Geek Squad repair facility in Kentucky.

We think the FBIs use of Best Buy Geek Squad employees to search peoples computers without a warrant threatens to circumvent peoples constitutional rights. Thats why we filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit today against the FBI seeking records about the extent to which it directs and trains Best Buy employees to conduct warrantless searches of peoples devices. Read our complaint here [PDF].

EFF has long been concerned about law enforcement using private actors, such as Best Buy employees, to conduct warrantless searches that the Fourth Amendment plainly bars police from doing themselves. The key question is at what point does a private persons search turn into a government search that implicates the Fourth Amendment. As described below, the law on the question is far from clear and needs to catch up with our digital world.

A federal prosecution of a doctor in California revealed that the FBI has been working for several years to cultivate informants in Best Buys national repair facility in Brooks, Kentucky, including reportedly paying eight Geek Squad employees as informants.

According to court records in the prosecution of the doctor, Mark Rettenmaier, the scheme would work as follows: Customers with computer problems would take their devices to the Geek Squad for repair. Once Geek Squad employees had the devices, they would surreptitiously search the unallocated storage space on the devices for evidence of suspected child porn images and then report any hits to the FBI for criminal prosecution.

Court records show that some Geek Squad employees received $500 or $1,000 payments from the FBI.

At no point did the FBI get warrants based on probable cause before Geek Squad informants conducted these searches. Nor are these cases the result of Best Buy employees happening across potential illegal content on a device and alerting authorities.

Rather, the FBI was apparently directing Geek Squad workers to conduct fishing expeditions on peoples devices to find evidence of criminal activity. Prosecutors would later argue, as they did in Rettenmaiers case, that because private Geek Squad personnel conducted the searches, there was no Fourth Amendment violation.

The judge in Rettenmaiers case appeared to agree with prosecutors, ruling earlier this month that because the doctor consented both orally and in writing to the Geek Squads search of his device, their search did not amount to a Fourth Amendment violation. The court, however, threw out other evidence against Rettenmaier after ruling that FBI agents misstated key facts in the application for a warrant to search his home and smartphone.

We disagree with the courts ruling that Rettenmaier consented to a de-facto government search of his devices when he sought Best Buy's help to repair his computer. But the court's ruling demonstrates that law enforcement agents are potentially exploiting legal ambiguity about when private searches become government action that appears intentionally designed to try to avoid the Fourth Amendment.

The FBI's use of Geek Squad employees to do their dirty work of searching people's devices without warrants is in part possible because there is a legal distinction between searches conducted by purely private parties and searches by private parties done on behalf of government agents.

The Fourth Amendment protections for persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, only protects against searches conducted by state actors or someone deputized to act on their behalf.

That means if a private actorlike your next door neighborbreaks into your home and finds evidence of a crime, theres nothing keeping the police from using your illegally gotten property or information against you. The neighbor may be liable for trespass, but it wouldn't amount to a Fourth Amendment violation. This is called the private search rule and it applies unless a court determines that the private actors are working for the government when conducting the illegal searches.

The federal appeals court covering California and other western states has ruled that determining whether a party is a state or private actor comes down to two elements: (1) whether government officials knew of and agreed to the intrusive search and (2) whether the party conducting the search intended to assist law enforcement or further her own ends.

Under this rubric, the FBI's Geek Squad informants should plainly qualify as agents of the government. The records disclosed thus far indicate that FBI agents paid Geek Squad informants to conduct these wide-ranging searches of customers' devices, suggesting that officials both knew about the searches and directed the informants to conduct them. The payments Geek Squad informants received also demonstrate that they conducted the searches with the intent to assist the FBI.

Because both factors are present in the FBI's use of Geek Squad informants, we think any court encountering facts similar to Rettenmaier's should rule that the Fourth Amendment applies to the searches conducted at Best Buy facilities. Because the Fourth Amendment generally requires the FBI to obtain warrants before searching devices, the warrantless searches by Geek Squad personnel were the result of an unconstitutional search and thus any evidence obtained as a result of the illegal searches should be thrown out of court.

However, even if the Geek Squad is found to be a state actor, the government may still argue that computer owners waived any reasonable expectation of privacy in their digital files when they consented to Best Buys terms for repairing their devices. The U.S. Supreme Court applies a reasonable person standard when a property owner is aware that they are consenting to a government search.

This proved to be the pivotal argument in Rettenmaier's case, as the government argued in its briefs that computer owners waived their Fourth Amendment rights by signing a written form stating that they are on notice that any product containing child pornography will be turned over to the authorities.

We disagree with the government's flawed argument. While the Best Buy service contract does put customers on notice that it will report child porn to the FBI if it finds it, we don't think it comes close to informing customers that Geek Squad employees are working for the FBI and will search their hard drives far beyond the scope of permission customers gave. As the Rettenmaier motions show, it appears that Best Buy staff searched unallocated storage space where the problems with the computer would not be found.

When a customer turns their devices over to Best Buy or any other repair shop, their consent to searches of their devices should be limited to where the problems with the computer are locate. Thus, customers cannot plausibly consent to expansive searches of their entire devices.

A real world analogy highlights the absurdity of the government's argument. When you go to the doctor for a sore throat, you dont expect the doctor to order an MRI of your entire body.

The FBI's exploitation of the private search doctrine by relying on Geek Squad informants to conduct searches of people's devices is incredibly problematic. As technology advances, the wealth of information that may be stored or accessed from our digital devices implicate profoundly more private spheres of our lives, from protected medical and financial information to personal information about our friends, family, and loves ones.

If courts continue to rule that the Geek Squad informants arenot state actors,thenthey are free to turn over any evidence they find to the government and law enforcement can then reconstruct the private partys search free of any Constitutional taint to then obtain a warrant for the evidence. This subverting of Constitutional protections is made possible by an outdated and problematic legal concept known as the Third Party Doctrine that bars Fourth Amendment protection when a user voluntarily shares information with a third party (here, the Geek Squad), thus defeating any reasonable expectation of privacy in the evidence. This legal theory has been applied to eviscerate individual privacy interests in such private information as bank records shared with your financial institution and cell site location information shared with your cell phone providers and produced to law enforcement without a warrant.

Currently, theres a circuit split on how this search reconstruction may take place. In the Fifth and Seventh Circuits, courts permit law enforcement to search the entire computer without a warrant based on the private partys search. In contrast, the Sixth and Eleventh Circuits restrict government searches only to the files searched by the private party. And in at least one district court in the Northern District of Indiana, the court decided that a private computer repairman had the authority to consent to a government search on behalf of the computer owner by virtue of his possession of the device.

We think that the FBI's use of Geek Squad informants is not an isolated event. Rather, it is a regular investigative tactic law enforcement employ to obtain digital evidence without first getting a warrant as the Fourth Amendment generally requires. EFF continues to look for opportunities to challenge this type of law enforcement behavior. If you have had your digital devices sent to the main Best Buy repair hub in Brooks, Kentucky for repair and it resulted in criminal proceedings against you, contact us at info@eff.org.

Continue reading here:
Why We're Suing the FBI for Records About Best Buy Geek Squad Informants - EFF

ABA Journal's Blawg 100 (2015-2016)

by John Wesley Hall Criminal Defense Lawyer and Search and seizure law consultant Little Rock, Arkansas Contact / The Book http://www.johnwesleyhall.com

2003-17, online since Feb. 24, 2003

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fourth Amendment cases, citations, and links

Latest Slip Opinions: U.S. Supreme Court (Home) Federal Appellate Courts Opinions First Circuit Second Circuit Third Circuit Fourth Circuit Fifth Circuit Sixth Circuit Seventh Circuit Eighth Circuit Ninth Circuit Tenth Circuit Eleventh Circuit D.C. Circuit Federal Circuit Foreign Intell.Surv.Ct. FDsys, many district courts, other federal courts, other Military Courts: C.A.A.F., Army, AF, N-M, CG State courts (and some USDC opinions)

Google Scholar Advanced Google Scholar Google search tips LexisWeb LII State Appellate Courts LexisONE free caselaw Findlaw Free Opinions To search Search and Seizure on Lexis.com $

Research Links: Supreme Court: SCOTUSBlog S. Ct. Docket Solicitor General's site SCOTUSreport Briefs online (but no amicus briefs) Oyez Project (NWU) "On the Docket"Medill S.Ct. Monitor: Law.com S.Ct. Com't'ry: Law.com

General (many free): LexisWeb Google Scholar | Google LexisOne Legal Website Directory Crimelynx Lexis.com $ Lexis.com (criminal law/ 4th Amd) $ Findlaw.com Findlaw.com (4th Amd) Westlaw.com $ F.R.Crim.P. 41 http://www.fd.org Federal Law Enforcement Training Center Resources FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (2008) (pdf) DEA Agents Manual (2002) (download) DOJ Computer Search Manual (2009) (pdf) Stringrays (ACLU No. Cal.) (pdf)

Congressional Research Service: --Electronic Communications Privacy Act (2012) --Overview of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (2012) --Outline of Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping (2012) --Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping (2012) --Federal Laws Relating to Cybersecurity: Discussion of Proposed Revisions (2012) ACLU on privacy Privacy Foundation Electronic Frontier Foundation NACDLs Domestic Drone Information Center Electronic Privacy Information Center Criminal Appeal (post-conviction) (9th Cir.) Section 1983 Blog

"If it was easy, everybody would be doing it. It isn't, and they don't." Me

I still learn something new every day. Pete Townshend, The Who 50th Anniversary Tour, "The Who Live at Hyde Park" (Showtime 2015)

"I can't talk about my singing. I'm inside it. How can you describe something you're inside of?" Janis Joplin

"Love work; hate mastery over others; and avoid intimacy with the government." Shemaya, in the Thalmud

"A system of law that not only makes certain conduct criminal, but also lays down rules for the conduct of the authorities, often becomes complex in its application to individual cases, and will from time to time produce imperfect results, especially if one's attention is confined to the particular case at bar. Some criminals do go free because of the necessity of keeping government and its servants in their place. That is one of the costs of having and enforcing a Bill of Rights. This country is built on the assumption that the cost is worth paying, and that in the long run we are all both freer and safer if the Constitution is strictly enforced." Williams v. Nix, 700 F. 2d 1164, 1173 (8th Cir. 1983) (Richard Sheppard Arnold, J.), rev'd Nix v. Williams, 467 US. 431 (1984).

"The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence." Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961).

"Any costs the exclusionary rule are costs imposed directly by the Fourth Amendment." Yale Kamisar, 86 Mich.L.Rev. 1, 36 n. 151 (1987).

"There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater than it is today." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 39 (1968) (Douglas, J., dissenting).

"The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property." Entick v. Carrington, 19 How.St.Tr. 1029, 1066, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C.P. 1765)

"It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people. And so, while we are concerned here with a shabby defrauder, we must deal with his case in the context of what are really the great themes expressed by the Fourth Amendment." United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)

"The course of true law pertaining to searches and seizures, as enunciated here, has notto put it mildlyrun smooth." Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 618 (1961) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).

"A search is a search, even if it happens to disclose nothing but the bottom of a turntable." Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987)

"For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. ... But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)

Experience should teach us to be most on guard to protect liberty when the Governments purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1925) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)

Libertythe freedom from unwarranted intrusion by governmentis as easily lost through insistent nibbles by government officials who seek to do their jobs too well as by those whose purpose it is to oppress; the piranha can be as deadly as the shark. United States v. $124,570, 873 F.2d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 1989)

"You can't always get what you want / But if you try sometimes / You just might find / You get what you need." Mick Jagger & Keith Richards

"In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for meand by that time there was nobody left to speak up." Martin Niemller (1945) [he served seven years in a concentration camp]

You know, most men would get discouraged by now. Fortunately for you, I am not most men! ---Pep Le Pew

Here is the original post:
Law review article: The Effects of Legislation on Fourth ...

During the Obama years, the National Security Agency intentionally and routinely intercepted and reviewed communications of American citizens in violation of the Constitution and of court-ordered guidelines implemented pursuant to federal law.

The unlawful surveillance appears to have been a massive abuse of the governments foreign-intelligence-collection authority, carried out for the purpose of monitoring the communications of Americans in the United States. While aware that it was going on for an extensive period of time, the administration failed to disclose its unlawful surveillance of Americans until late October 2016, when the administration was winding down and the NSA needed to meet a court deadline in order to renew various surveillance authorities under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

The administrations stonewalling about the scope of the violation induced an exasperated Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to accuse the NSA of an institutional lack of candor in connection with what the court described as a very serious Fourth Amendment issue. (The court is the federal tribunal created in 1978 by FISA; it is often referred to as a secret court because proceedings before it are classified and ex parte meaning only the Justice Department appears before the court.)

The FISA-court opinion is now public, available here. The unlawful surveillance was first exposed in a report at Circa by John Solomon and Sara Carter, who have also gotten access to internal, classified reports. The story was also covered extensively Wednesday evening by James Rosen and Bret Baier on Fox Newss Special Report.

According to the internal reports reviewed by Solomon and Carter, the illegal surveillance may involve more than 5 percent of NSA searches of databases derived from what is called upstream collection of Internet communications.

As the FISA court explains, upstream collection refers to the interception of communications as they transit the facilities of an Internet backbone carrier. These are the data routes between computer networks. The routes are hosted by government, academic, commercial, and similar high-capacity network centers, and they facilitate the global, international exchange of Internet traffic. Upstream collection from the Internets backbone, which accounts for about 9 percent of the NSAs collection haul (a massive amount of communications), is distinguished from interception of communications from more familiar Internet service providers.

Upstream collection is a vital tool for gathering intelligence against foreign threats to the United States. It is, of course, on foreign intelligence targets non-U.S. persons situated outside the U.S. that the NSA and CIA are supposed to focus. Foreign agents operating inside the U.S. are mainly the purview of the FBI, which conducts surveillance of their communications through warrants from the FISA court individualized warrants based on probable cause that a specific person is acting as an agent of a foreign power.

The NSA conducts vacuum intelligence-collection under a different section of FISA section 702. It is inevitable that these section 702 surveillance authorities will incidentally intercept the communications of Americans inside the United States if those Americans are communicating with the foreign target. This does not raise serious Fourth Amendment concerns; after all, non-targeted Americans are intercepted all the time in traditional criminal wiretaps because they call, or are called by, the target. But FISA surveillance is more controversial than criminal surveillance because the government does not have to show probable cause of a crime and when the targets are foreigners outside the U.S., the government does not have to make any showing; it may target if it has a legitimate foreign-intelligence purpose, which is really not much of a hurdle at all.

So, as noted in coverage of the Obama administrations monitoring of Trump-campaign officials, FISA section 702 provides some privacy protection for Americans: The FISA court orders minimization procedures, which require any incidentally intercepted Americans identity to be masked. That is, the NSA must sanitize the raw data by concealing the identity of the American. Only the masked version of the communication is provided to other U.S. intelligence agencies for purposes of generating reports and analyses. As I have previously explained, however, this system relies on the good faith of government officials in respecting privacy: There are gaping loopholes that permit American identities to be unmasked if, for example, the NSA or some other intelligence official decides doing so is necessary to understand the intelligence value of the communication.

While that kind of incidental collection raises the concerns of privacy advocates, it is a small problem compared to upstream collection, the technology of which poses profound Fourth Amendment challenges.

In a nutshell, it is not possible to capture a single e-mail related to a single target as it transits the backbone routes (or switches) that connect networks. The NSA must instead capture packets of e-mail data which include lots of e-mails beside the targeted e-mail. It sifts through these packets, finds and assembles the components of the email it was looking for, and then discards the rest. (A New York Times report by Charlie Savage earlier this week, in connection with a different FISA issue, provides a good explanation of this process. By contrast, the relevant discussion in the FISA court opinion of multiple communications transactions, or MCTs, is brief and heavily redacted see the opinion at 1516.) Even if the NSA does exactly what it is supposed to do (i.e., sift and discard), this means American communications are being seized and subjected to an inspection however cursory in the absence of any warrant, probable cause, or foreign-intelligence relevance.

Now, couple this problem with the way the NSA targets. The upstream communications it collects end up in databases. When the NSA has a target about whom it seeks intelligence, it runs a search through the databases using what is variously called an identifier, a selection term, or a selector some e-mail address, phone number, or other identifying information related to the target. For years, U.S. intelligence agencies have not just sought any communications to or from this target; they have also sought any communications about this target e.g., when the target merely appears to have been referred to. This means the communications of people, including Americans inside the United States, are far more likely to be accessed and analyzed even though, again, there is no warrant or probable cause, there may be no direct communication with a proper intelligence target, and the Americans communications may be of no foreign-intelligence value.

So, to summarize, we have the communications of Americans inside the United States being incidentally intercepted, stored, sifted through, and in some instances analyzed, even though those Americans are not targets of foreign-intelligence collection. The minimization procedures are supposed to prevent the worst potential abuses, particularly, the pretextual use of foreign-intelligence-collection authority in order to conduct domestic spying. But even when complied with, there is a colorable argument that the minimization procedures do not eliminate the Fourth Amendment problem i.e., they permit seizure and search without adequate cause.

Now we know the minimization procedures have not been complied with. The new scandal involves their flouting.

In 2011, it became clear to the FISA court that the minimization procedures were providing insufficient protection to Americans. Of special concern was the use of identifiers of American citizens as selection terms for database searches. While the activities of these Americans might have made them worthy foreign-intelligence targets, there are other ways to monitor them under FISA. Targeting them for section 702 searches increased the likelihood that wholly domestic communications between Americans would be collected.

Thus, the minimization procedures were ratcheted up. The most significant change, as the FISA court opinion relates, was that the revised procedures categorically prohibited NSA analysts from using U.S.-person identifiers to query the results of upstream Internet collection (emphasis added).

This meant the NSA was not supposed to use an Americans phone number, e-mail address, or other identifier in running searches through its upstream database.

It is this prohibition that the NSA routinely and extensively violated. Evidently, there was widespread use of American identifiers throughout the years after the 2011 revision of the minimization procedures. The violation was so broad that, at the time the Obama administration ended, its scope had still not been determined.

The Trump Justice Department proposed new procedures in late March, which the FISA court has approved. These include the elimination of searches about a target henceforth, searches are limited to communications in which the target is presumptively a participant (i.e., to or from). The new procedures redouble efforts to assure that the database collects only foreign communications (i.e., at least one end of the communication is outside the U.S.).

We should note that section 702 is due to lapse unless reauthorized later this year, so the new rules will obviously be subjected to close scrutiny. A salient question will be whether this new scandal is mainly a case of technology outpacing the capacity to formulate rules that bring its use into constitutional compliance.

Im sure there is a good deal of that going on; that means the system is inadvertently inputting communications that should not be collected and stored. Plainly, though, something more insidious has also gone on. Even if the inputting has been inadvertently flawed, the outputs what is actually accessed from the database and analyzed would be less likely to violate American privacy if the minimization procedures were followed. The rules from 2011 forward were simple: Do not use American identifiers. Yet NSA used them not once or twice because some new technician didnt know better. This violation of law was routine and extensive, known and concealed.

Clearly, this new scandal must be considered in context.

The NSA says it does not share raw upstream collection data with any other intelligence agency. But that data is refined into reports. To the extent the data collected has increased the number of Americans whose activities make it into reports, it has simultaneously increased the opportunities for unmasking American identities. Other reporting indicates that there was a significant uptick in unmasking incidents in the latter years of the Obama administration. More officials were given unmasking authority. At the same time, President Obama loosened restrictions to allow wider access to raw intelligence collection and wider dissemination of intelligence reports.

This geometrically increased the likelihood that classified information would be leaked as did the Obama administrations encouragement to Congress to demand disclosure of intelligence related to the Trump campaign (the purported TrumpRussia connection). And of course, there has been a stunning amount of leaking of classified information to the media.

Enabling of domestic spying, contemptuous disregard of court-ordered minimization procedures (procedures the Obama administration itself proposed, then violated), and unlawful disclosure of classified intelligence to feed a media campaign against political adversaries. Quite the Obama legacy.

Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

View original post here:
Explosive Revelation of Obama Administration Illegal Surveillance of Americans - National Review

Attorney says judge violated Murfreesboro dad's 4th Amendment rights and took kids away. PHOTO: WZTV FOX 17 Nashville

Murfreesboro's Daniel Russell has two kids with his wife Kimberly and three from a previous marriage. Those three kids lived in Wayne county.

Out of the blue one day, he gets a phone call from DCS saying they are taking his kids from his ex-wife and going into state custody. Russell says he was told "if you want them, you have two hours."

I left work and got them, said Russell.

This wasn't easy. His family of four became a family of seven. His 16-year-old daughter was pregnant, and his son has a learning disability.

Nevertheless , Russell never hesitated. He got a bigger apartment and rolled up his sleeves. He and his wife joyfully accepted their new big family.

We keep a tight ship," Russell said. "We keep a calendar on the wall and have dinners planned out for a week. The kids came from a totally different environment, and the DCS workers saw that when they came to my house."

Truth was, Daniel Russell and his wife were loving it and his kids were too.

I got a permanent parenting plan in the mail, and they said they were closing the case, Russell said.

Russell went down to Waynesboro to close the case. Out of the blue, Russell says Juvenile Court Judge James Ross ordered him to take a drug test.

Keep in mind, Russell has no drug history. There is no order anywhere requiring drug screening during the process.

The judge was like 'you ain't gonna take a drug test?' and I said hold stop right there I think I need to consult an attorney, Russell said. "That's not what I said, that's not what is happening."

Russell said he would go to a commercial lab and take a drug test right then and there. The court said not good enough and dismissed the motion the close the case.

Judge Ross then rules there is probable cause that the children are neglected or abused and takes the kids from Daniel.

"All of a sudden, boom, I am under the bus, said Russell.

After that shocking hearing, Russell hired well-known family law attorney Connie Reguli.

Look at this objectively," Reguli said. "He came in and saved the day; took kids who were in a bad situation, got them re-stabilized in his home, in school, his daughter medical care, and he had to change his life with two hours notice, and then he thinks it's over and he goes to court and the next thing you know before the sun sets that day he is turning his kids over to DCS custody."

Daniel says Mikayla, Christopher and Hannah are heartbroken, ripped away from a dad who was showing how much he cared.

Judge Ross gives two kids to Daniel's brother and his daughter to his ex-wife's grandmother. They are not even living in the same county anymore.

Connie Reguli says this is a violation of Fourth Amendment rights, the right against illegal search and seizure without probable cause.

When you have someone walk in and there has never been an allegation , never a positive screen, no referral, no complaint there has never been anything that would even suggest this is a parent who abused drugs, this is a Fourth Amendment violation," Reguli said. "There is no loophole."

This man, who has already spent thousands of dollars to make a real home for his kids, is spending thousands getting them back.

Russell did take that drug test at a private lab, and it was negative. Now five weeks later, he still doesn't even have a court date to get his kids back.

Read the original:
Attorney says judge violated Murfreesboro dad's 4th Amendment rights and took kids away - WZTV

Ive been silent on the blog for a while Ive been tweeting my way through current events rather than blogging about them but I wanted to flag the publication of my latest article, The Effect of Legislation on Fourth Amendment Protection, 115 Michigan Law Review 1117 (2017). The abstract:

When judges interpret the Fourth Amendment, and privacy legislation regulates the governments conduct, should the legislation have an effect on the Fourth Amendment? Courts are split three ways. Some courts argue that legislation provides the informed judgment of a coequal branch that should influence the Fourth Amendment. Some courts contend that the presence of legislation should displace Fourth Amendment protection to prevent constitutional rules from interfering with the legislatures handiwork. Finally, some courts treat legislation and the Fourth Amendment as independent and contend that the legislation should have no effect.

This Article argues that courts should favor interpreting the Fourth Amendment independently of legislation. At first blush, linking the Fourth Amendment to legislation seems like a pragmatic way to harness the experience and skills of the legislature to help implement constitutional values. A closer look reveals a different picture. Investigative legislation offers a surprisingly weak indicator of constitutional values. Linking the Fourth Amendment and statutes raises novel and complex questions of what links to draw and how to draw them. Linkage also threatens to weaken statutory privacy laws by turning the legislative process into a proxy battle for Fourth Amendment protection. Interpreting the Fourth Amendment independently of legislation avoids these problems. Independence limits arbitrary decisionmaking, provides a clear standard, and helps to protect the benefits of legislation.

This issue will come up soon at the Supreme Court if the justices agree to review the still-pending petitions on Fourth Amendment protection for cell-site data. As always, stay tuned.

See original here:
Final version of 'The Effect of Legislation on Fourth Amendment Protection' - Washington Post