EL MONTE POLICE OFFICER VIOLATES ARMY VETERAN #39;S FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHT
EL MONTE POLICE OFFICER VIOLATES AMY VETERAN #39;S FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHT. UNLAWFUL AND ILLEGAL SEARCH.
By: Wheel Dynaimcs
See the article here:
EL MONTE POLICE OFFICER VIOLATES ARMY VETERAN'S FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHT - Video
A Judge in Columbia ruled that providing law enforcement with access to an entire email account in an investigation did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures of property.
The order Friday by Chief Judge Richard W. Roberts of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colombia reversed an earlier decision by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola who refused to allow a two-step procedure whereby law enforcement is provided all emails relating to a target account, and is then allowed to examine the emails at a separate location to identify evidence.
The striking down of Judge Facciola's ruling will likely fuel the privacy debate in the country. A New York judge defended last month his order that gave the government access to all content of the Gmail account of a target in a money laundering investigation.
Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held that courts have long recognized the practical need for law enforcement to seize documents if only to determine whether they fall within the warrant.
The opinion was at odds with decisions by judges in several courts, Judge Gorenstein noted.
In his review, Judge Roberts appears to have taken a similar view on the issue as Judge Gorenstein in New York.
Judge Roberts wrote that the two-step process is in compliance with the Fourth Amendment and the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41. Asking a service provider to execute a search warrant could pose problems, as non-government employees, untrained in the details of criminal investigation, likely lack the requisite skills and expertise to determine whether a document is relevant to the investigation, he wrote.
Judge Gorenstein had also rejected the option of getting the email host to search the emails, stating that Google employees would not be able to figure the significance of particular emails.
Judge Facciola had earlier ruled that probable cause had not been established for all of the large quantities of emails the government wanted to seize, and recommended that the service provider, in this case Apple, should be asked to search for the relevant mails, rather than handing over all the information to government officials.
"What the government proposes is that this Court issue a general warrant that would allow a 'general, exploratory rummaging in a person's belongings'--in this case an individual's e-mail account," Judge Facciola wrote in March.
Follow this link:
US court rules in favor of providing officials access to entire email account
Philadelphia, PA (PRWEB) October 22, 2014
The Third Circuit in U.S. v. Katzin, 2014 U.S. Dist. WL 4851779 (3d Cir. Oct. 1, 2014), reversed its prior decision of the split three-judge panel and ruled that "...when the agents acted, they did so upon an objectively reasonable good-faith belief in the legality of their conduct, and that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule therefore applies."
In the Katzin case, suspecting the defendants of committing various burglaries, police, without a warrant, installed a GPS onto their van, leading to their apprehension. Almost two years later, the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Jones, 463 U.S. 354 (2012) ruled that this exact conduct needed a warrant. A three judge panel of the Third Circuit then held that the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant to install a GPS device on a suspects car. U.S. v. Katzin,732 F. 3d 187 (3d Cir. 2013). Prior to Jones, the Supreme Court had ruled that installing surveillance devices was not necessarily a Fourth Amendment violation. See U.S. v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984) and U.S. v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983). The question before the en banc panel, therefore, was whether the police in Katzin were reasonably relying on these precedents to justify the legality of attaching the GPS device. The en banc panel in Katzin relied upon the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Davis v. U.S., 131 S.Ct. 2419 (2011), which held that the good faith exception applies when the police were reasonably relying on binding precedent. Prior to Jones, the Supreme Court had ruled that installing surveillance devices was not necessarily a Fourth Amendment violation.
Ms. Lefeber explains that the Katzin decision effectively eviscerates any Fourth Amendment protection because it creates a good-faith exception to the suppression of ill-gotten evidence.
Judge D. Brooks Smith, similarly, wrote in his dissent:
"The majority's good-faith analysis is flawed because it finds that, where the law is unsettled, law enforcement may engage in constitutionally reckless conduct and still reap the benefits of the good-faith exception. Fourth Amendment jurisprudence dictates a different outcome. When the law is unsettled, law enforcement should not travel the road of speculation, but rather they should demonstrate respect for the constitutional mandateobtain a warrant. Anything less would require suppression." Katzin, Ibid.
About Hope Lefeber:
In practice since 1979, Lefeber is an experienced and aggressive criminal defense attorney in Philadelphia. As a former Enforcement Attorney for the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission, Lefeber uses the knowledge she gained while working for the government to best defend her clients facing serious state and federal charges related to drug offenses and white collar crime, including business and corporate fraud, mail and wire fraud, money laundering, financial and securities fraud, and tax fraud. A member of the invitation-only National Trial Lawyers Top 100, Lefeber has been recognized by Thomson Reuters as a 2014 Super Lawyer. She has represented high-profile clients, published numerous articles, lectured on federal criminal law issues, taught Continuing Legal Education classes to other Philadelphia criminal defense attorneys and has been quoted by various media outlets, from TV news to print publications.
Learn more at http://www.hopelefeber.com/
View post:
Third Circuit Allows Evidence from Warrantless GPS Device
Your computer, phone, and other digital devices hold vast amounts of personal information about you and your family. This sensitive data is worth protecting from prying eyes, including those of the government.
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects you from unreasonable government searches and seizures, and this protection extends to your computer and portable devices. But how does this work in the real world? What should you do if the police or other law enforcement officers show up at your door and want to search your computer?
EFF has designed this guide to help you understand your rights if officers try to search the data stored on your computer or portable electronic device, or seize it for further examination somewhere else. Keep in mind that the Fourth Amendment is the minimum standard, and your specific state may have stronger protections.
Because anything you say can be used against you in a criminal or civil case, before speaking to any law enforcement official, you should consult with an attorney. Remember generally the fact that you assert your rights cannot legally be used against you in court. You can always state: "I do not want to talk to you or answer any questions without my attorney present." If they continue to ask you questions after that point, you can say: "Please don't ask me any further questions until my attorney is present." And if the police violate your rights and conduct an illegal search, often the evidence they obtain as a result of that search can't be used against you.
We've organized this guide into three sections:
If you consent to a search, the police don't need a warrant.
The most frequent ways police are able to search is by asking you for permission. If you say "yes" and consent to the search, then police don't need a warrant. You can limit the scope of that consent and even revoke or take it back after the officers begin searching, but by then it may be too late.1 That's why it's better not consent to a searchpolice may drop the matter. If not, then they will generally need to get a search warrant to search.
Law enforcement may show up at your door. Apart from a few exceptions, police need a warrant to enter your home.
The police can't simply enter your home to search it or any electronic device inside, like a laptop or cell phone, without a warrant.
Go here to read the rest:
When Can the Police Search Your Phone and Computer?
The Supreme Court is weighing in on another Fourth Amendment privacy case, this one concerning a Los Angeles ordinance requiring hotels to surrender guest registries to the police upon request without a warrant.
Thejustices agreed(PDF) Monday to hear Los Angeles' appeal of a lower court that ruled7-4 that the lawmeant to combat prostitution, gambling, and even terrorismwas unconstitutional. The law(PDF) requires hotels to provide the informationincluding guests' credit card number, home address, driver's license information, and vehicle license numberat a moment's notice. Several dozen cities, from Atlanta to Seattle, have similar ordinances.
"The Supreme Court will consider both the scope of privacy protections for hotel guests and also whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits laws that allow unlawful searches," EPIC wrote. "The second issue has far-reaching consequences because many recent laws authorize the police searches without judicial review. Thus far, courts have only considered "as applied" challenges on a case-by-case basis."
The appeal is the third high-profile Fourth Amendment case the justices have taken in three years.
In 2012, the justices ruled that authorities generally need search warrants when they affix GPS devices to a vehicle. And earlier this year, the Supreme Court said that the authorities need warrants to peek into the mobile phones of suspects they arrest.
In the latest case,Los Angeles motel owners sued, claiming that the law was a violation of their rights. The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the motel owners in December and said the only documentsthey must disclose include a hotel's proprietary pricing and occupancy information.
Businesses do not ordinarily disclose, and are not expected to disclose, the kind of commercially sensitive information contained in the records, Judge Paul Watford wrote for the majority. He said a hotel has "the right to exclude others from prying into the contents of its records."
In dissent, Judge Richard Clifton wrote that neither the hotel nor the guest has an expectation of privacy."A guest's information is even less personal to the hotel than it is to the guest," Clifton said.
In arguing to the justices that they should review the majority's conclusion, Los Angeles city officials wrote(PDF), "These laws expressly help police investigate crimes such as prostitution and gambling, capture dangerous fugitives and even authorize federal law enforcement to examine these registers, an authorization which can be vital in the immediate aftermath of a homeland terrorist attack."
Thehigh court did not set a hearing date.
More here:
Supreme Court to decide if cops can access hotel registries without warrants