Archive for the ‘Fourth Amendment’ Category

Our Fourth Amendment rights have been eroded by Drug War: Jarvis DeBerry

This nation's founders were so concerned about the overreach of law enforcement that they enshrined in the Constitution a protection for citizens. The police couldn't just invade your space cavalierly or without a warrant. The people were not to be subjected to "unreasonable searches and seizures."

But in the 20th Century, this country came up with a regrettable idea called the Drug War, and had to make a choice. Do we maintain the integrity of the Fourth Amendment, or do we fight this unnecessary and unwinnable war? You know the answer. We've decided to fight. Bye, Fourth Amendment.

Radley Balko, the author of "Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces" says in a blog post at The Washington Post that the Fourth Amendment has little meaning in the era of the Drug War. In a way, he writes, the colonists who complained about the aggressive law enforcement practices of England, had more protections than today's American citizen.

"For example," the Balko writes, "British soldiers could serve warrants only during the day. And they were always required to knock, announce themselves, announce their purpose and give the resident time and opportunity to come to the door to let them in peacefully. This was all in observance of the Castle Doctrine, or the idea that the home should be a place of peace and sanctuary, and that it should be violated only in the most extreme circumstances.

"Today, of course, authorities can break into homes without knocking. They can conduct raids at night.... [I]f the Fourth Amendment is due to the Founders' offense atBritish soldiers forcibly entering homes in daylight hours after knocking and announcing to search for contraband, it seems safe to say that the Founders would be appalled by the fact that today, dozens of times each day, heavily armed government officials break into homes, often at night,without first knocking and announcing, in order to conduct searches for contraband."

Balko is appropriately incensed at a 2-1 Fourth Circuit ruling this month that overturns a jury award of $250,000 to the survivors of Andrew Cornish. He was shot and killed in May 2005 after a SWAT team from the Cambridge, Md., police force barged into his house at 4:30 a.m. without knocking. An anonymous tipster had reported "drug activity" at the apartment where Cornish lived, and investigators had secured a warrant after digging through the trash outdoors and finding two plastic bags with marijuana residue.

At the sound of a break-in, Cornish walked out of his bedroom with a knife. It was still in its sheath. The police shot him in the face and the forehead. In that Fourth Circuit ruling, the two judges writing for the majority say Cornish caused his own death because he should have known that the people who had invaded his house were the police.

"Itis an utterly absurd ruling," Balko writes. "Police don't raid homes at 4:30 a.m, with battering rams in order to let suspects know that they're the police. They raid homes at 4:30 a.m. with battering ramsfor the verypurposeof disorienting and confusing suspects so that they can take them by surprise. You can't simultaneously argue that confusing and disorienting a suspect is necessary to protect the safety of police officers,and that the same suspect you're trying to confuse and disorient should be able to wake from a sleep, process what's going on around him, immediately discern that the armed men who have just broken into his home are police serving a warrant and not criminals there to do him harm, and that should he make an error in judgment, he alone is responsible for the consequences-- whether it's the end of his own life, or his killing, or the injuring of one of the police officers."

You can't? So how come that's what the Fourth Circuit ruled?

Cornish wasn't some high-powered king pin. Police found a "small amount of marijuana" in his apartment, which suggests that maybe he liked to smoke a little weed. Was it necessary for the police to break into his house for small amounts of marijuana? Would it even have been right if they had found larger amounts of the drug?

Read the original here:
Our Fourth Amendment rights have been eroded by Drug War: Jarvis DeBerry

Worrying about online privacy

The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution protects Americans against unreasonable searches and seizures of either self or property by government officials. When the government oversteps its authority, those responsible must be held accountable for their actions. With few exceptions, however, government surveillance focuses on protecting life, property and the American way. Private surveillance, on the other hand, is governed by no laws, and is conducted for self-interest and profit. In volume, stealth and intrusiveness, the private sector far surpasses anything the government has attempted or even contemplated doing. Yet, while Americans regularly read or hear about the National Security Agency (NSA) and Central Intelligence Agencys (CIA) intrusion into their lives, not many seem to be accusing private companies like Walmart or the Ford Motor Company of spying on people. It comes down to whether Americans trust companies like Verizon, Target, and Google to respect their privacy more than they trust the US government. The intelligence communitys focus is on foreign threats and activities overseas. The CIA and NSA operate under strict rules and regulations, including a ban against collecting information on Americans. The current policy states that signals intelligence shall be collected exclusively where there is a foreign intelligence or counterintelligence purpose to support national and departmental missions and not for any other purposes. The private sector, on the other hand, focuses on the bottom line and operates unfettered. Google a resort in Mexico, and see how ads for that destination continue to pop up every time you open your Internet browser. And that is only the tip of the iceberg. You cant imagine all the things going on behind the scenes that you arent able to see. Government surveillance, of course, increases when a known terrorist or other enemy of the United States contacts an American citizen. Following 9/11, NSA analysts were given limited access to the bad guys communication links to the United States. Even then, however, the privacy of American citizens remained a top priority. Going forward, if a known terrorist communicates with an American citizen, I suspect most Americans would feel more comfortable knowing someone is watching their back. Having spent more than 40 years as an intelligence officer, I know first-hand that the US intelligence community has made its share of mistakes (being dead wrong about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and condoning torture spring readily to mind). And I continue to believe in the necessity of strict congressional oversight and restrictions, which separate the US intelligence community from other intelligence organizations like the KGB. This oversight is critical for an intelligence community serving a democratic country. It is true that the US intelligence community has at times been overzealous in protecting against terrorist threats and others who could do the United States harm, but not because it was seeking to pry into the private affairs of American citizens. For me, the NSA and Drug Enforcement Administrations (DEA) bulk collection and storage programs fall into the overzealous category. I am aware of the argument that more is better, but when weighed against privacy rights and the questionable predictive value of these materials, these arguments dont make sense. As in other areas, the Intelligence Community tends to overstate its capability to predict future events. I suspect the efforts to stop or disrupt terrorist attacks are on par with law enforcements (rather poor) record on stopping premeditated murders, kidnappings, and the spread of illegal drugs. For me, the larger problem is the massive effort by private companies to collect every bit of data they can about me: my health, what I buy, what I eat, where I shop, who I talk to, and on and on. All of this is done not only without my permission, but also without my knowledge and it is legal. Of course, I dont want the government snooping around in my private affairs any more than you do. Yet, if it is in the nations security interest and my privacy remains protected, access to my metadata doesnt seem like too much for my government to ask of me. The writer is the former head of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), US State Department. (In partnership with The Mark News)

Continue reading here:
Worrying about online privacy

Standing ovation as Seanad passes same sex marriage Bill

Independent Katherine Zappone said the fundamental issue at stake was about the protection of a minoritys right to marry by opening a civil institution, to be protected and be able to become a constitutional family. Photographer: Dara Mac Dnaill /The Irish Times

Legislation to allow for a referendum on same sex marriage has been passed in the Seanad with a standing ovation by many of those supporting the Bill.

The Thirty-Fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Marriage Equality Bill) was accepted by 29 votes to three in the Upper House after a week of sometimes heated debate.

The legislation now goes to the President for signature, having been passed by the Dil without a vote.

The Bill was passed as an opinion poll in The Irish Times showed a 6 per cent drop in support for the introduction of same sex marriage since December when the last poll was conducted. The referendum takes place on Friday, May 22nd.

Support stands at 74 per cent compared to 80 per cent in the last poll. Support for a No vote has risen 6 per cent to 26 per cent, when undecided voters are accounted for.

A number of amendments from Independent Ronn Mullen were rejected including that marriage equality should not have unintended consequences affecting what he called freedom of conscience issues.

Mr Mullen said that as a general principle, it should always be immoral and unlawful to discriminate against a person on grounds of his or her sexual orientation.

However, refusing to provide a service in circumstances which one perceives to link one with something with which one conscientiously disagrees is not the same thing.

He highlighted the case of a bakery in Belfast which refused to provide a cake for a civil partnership and was being prosecuted by what he called the equality people in the North.

View post:
Standing ovation as Seanad passes same sex marriage Bill

Rule 41 Change Could Allow FBI To Get Warrants To Remotely Search Suspects' Computers Without Notice

The Department of Justice recently edged closer to a rule change that would allow the FBI to track suspected criminals' computer activity more easily. The Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules voted last week in favor of an update to Rule 41, which dictates how judges can issue search warrants on electronic devices, Government Executive reported. The new rule 41 would let judges OK warrants to examine computers remotely anywhere as opposed to only those in their districts. The FBI would also no longer would be required to give users notice ahead of its searches.

"The rule itself would be an acknowledgement that remote access searches are valid without notice, without special justification," Electronic Privacy Information Center general counsel Alan Butler told Gizmodo. "Notice is one of the essential procedural protections of the Fourth Amendment. Validating a rule that implies that notice will never happen does not comport with the Fourth Amendment."

The Fourth Amendment forbids unreasonable searches and seizures.

The FBI has requested the rule change to better function in the 21st-century world of technology, DefenseOnereported. The agency would have more options, like the authority to secretly install tracking software on the computers of alleged criminals.

Privacy groups are opposed to this. Google came out against the Rule 41 change last week, arguing it raises a number of monumental and highly complex constitutional, legal and geopolitical concerns that should be left to Congress to decide. The Department of Justice fired back, saying the amendment had been misread and would not authorize the government to undertake any search or seizure or use any remote search technique not already permitted under current law.

In any event, the proposal will next go before the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, then the Supreme Court. If approved, Gizmodo reported, Rule 41 could be updated by December 2016.

See the rest here:
Rule 41 Change Could Allow FBI To Get Warrants To Remotely Search Suspects' Computers Without Notice

Senate Votes Against Fourth Amendment Protection Act 720p – Video


Senate Votes Against Fourth Amendment Protection Act 720p
I am just a middleman trying to spread the word FAIR USE NOTICE: This video may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for entertainment purposes only. This constitutes...

By: Timothy anon

Go here to see the original:
Senate Votes Against Fourth Amendment Protection Act 720p - Video