Mediaboss Marketing

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

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

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

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

Yesterday we looked at a warrantless, mass search of Georgia high school students that was almost certainly unconstitutional, and that some students say included touching and probing of their genitals. Today,another disturbing story about what would seem to be clearly unconstitutional searches at a Colorado low-income apartment complex:

The Longmont Housing Authority says it was using the homes of low-income residents to train police drug dogs. There werent warrants, but simply a notice that the landlord was coming, and a police officer and drug dog would be there, too.

The letter to residents of The Suites low-income housing community starts with standard stuff, notifying them of an inspection. Thats what landlords across Colorado do.

Then it mentions that the police officer and drug dog. Nowhere in the letter are residents told that while they must let the landlord in, they do not have to allow the police officer and drug dog inside without a warrant. And then, if the officer does come inside, anything they find is fair game.

The head of the complex isKrystal Winship Erazo, and she appears to have no concept whatsoever of the Fourth Amendment.

Two months ago, there were some rumors and some concerns about drug activity on the property and one way we found to address it was to invite a partnership with the Longmont Police Department to invite the canines over on their training day, Erazo said in an interview with 9NEWS. Usually it helps the residents feel really secure in that were following up, were holding residents accountable, its an opportunity for the dogs to train.

Ill go ahead and write this, because apparently needs to be written: Low-incomepeople havethe same rights as everyone else. Low-income people are not the equivalent of tackling dummies, or lab rats or volunteers on some police training course.You cantuse poor people to train your police dogs.

Erazo then spoutsthe hackneyedline of every Fourth Amendment authoritarian everywhere.

If there is concern, it kind of sparks some curiosity for me, Erazo said. You know, what are they concerned about if (the officers) only job is to ensure there arent drugs in the unit?

It sparks some curiosity is a euphemistic way of saying poor people who dont want cops going through their stuff can only beup to no good.

The complex has since halted the searches. But it makes you wonder where else this sort of thing is happening. I recall in researching my first book that in the 1980s and 1990s there were policeraids on entire housing complexes. Every unit inside was hit. The raids were obviously illegal, but the people on the receiving end of them were usually powerless to do much about it.

Good on Denvers 9 News for covering this story, and for making this point in particular:

Its worth noting that the only reason this practice went public and stopped is because someone at the public housing complex knew her rights, and knew that she didnt have to submit to a warrantless police search, no matter what the housing authority said.

Link:
Colorado housing officials invite cops to perform warrantless searches on poor people - Washington Post