Mediaboss Marketing

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

Rand Paul Third Party Records Should Get Fourth Amendment Protection O #39;Reilly Factor 6 11 2013
join.quizgroup.com?ref=47586 BIG YOUTUBE NETWORK QuizGroup is one of the biggest YouTube multichannel networks in the world. Everyone can join YouTube partne...

By: Ali Veli

More:
Rand Paul Third Party Records Should Get Fourth Amendment Protection O'Reilly Factor 6 11 2013 - Video

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.

Legal scholars and courts have been wrangling for more than a year over whether the National Security Agencys collection of millions of Americans phone records a program first disclosed to the public by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden in 2013 violates those protections. Some legal experts disagree over whether the record collection even qualifies as a search or seizure, and, if it does, whether collecting those records is unreasonable or requires a warrant.

In a recent Intelligence Squared U.S. debate, two teams of constitutional law experts faced off on the motion Mass Collection of U.S. Phone Records Violates The Fourth Amendment. In these Oxford-style debates, the team that sways the most people to its side by the end is the winner.

Todays Question: Does the mass collection of phone records violate the Fourth Amendment?

See original here:
Does the mass collection of phone records violate the Fourth Amendment?

John Yoo, a former lawyer with the U.S. Department of Justice, argues that the NSA's phone records surveillance program is constitutional. Jeff Fusco /Intelligence Squared U.S. hide caption

John Yoo, a former lawyer with the U.S. Department of Justice, argues that the NSA's phone records surveillance program is constitutional.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."

Legal scholars and courts have been wrangling for more than a year over whether the National Security Agency's collection of millions of Americans' phone records a program first disclosed to the public by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden in 2013 violates those protections. Some legal experts disagree over whether the record collection even qualifies as a search or seizure, and, if it does, whether collecting those records is "unreasonable" or requires a warrant.

In a recent Intelligence Squared U.S. debate, two teams of constitutional law experts faced off on the motion "Mass Collection of U.S. Phone Records Violates The Fourth Amendment." In these Oxford-style debates, the team that sways the most people to its side by the end is the winner.

Before the debate, the audience at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia voted 46 percent in favor of the motion and 17 percent against, with 37 percent undecided. After the debate, 66 percent agreed with the motion and 28 percent were opposed. That made the team arguing in favor of the motion the winner of the debate.

Those debating:

FOR THE MOTION

The Constitutional Accountability Center's Elizabeth Wydra, with teammate Alex Abdo of the ACLU, argues that collecting data that can reveal "deeply private information" without suspicion of wrongdoing violates the Fourth Amendment. Jeff Fusco/Intelligence Squared U.S. hide caption

The Constitutional Accountability Center's Elizabeth Wydra, with teammate Alex Abdo of the ACLU, argues that collecting data that can reveal "deeply private information" without suspicion of wrongdoing violates the Fourth Amendment.

Follow this link:
Debate: Does Mass Phone Data Collection Violate The 4th Amendment?