Mediaboss Marketing

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?

Montgomery County Executive Isiah Leggett said Tuesday the county will not comply with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement civil detainer requests, unless there is adequate probable cause under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Leggetts statement comes on the heels of an identical directive from Gov. Martin J. OMalley to the Public Safety and Correctional Services Secretary Gregg Hershberger for a state-run jail in Baltimore, and advice from the Attorney Generals Office that without probable cause, continued detention likely violates the constitution.

Immigration detainers are notices to local law enforcement agencies that ICE intends to assume custody of an individual being held locally. Detainers not only notify local law enforcement that ICE means to take a person into custody once they are no longer subject to local detention, detainers also request the local agency hold individuals for up to 48 hours after their scheduled release to provide ICE time to take custody, according to http://www.ice.gov.

According to a news release from the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland, federal courts have found that detention on the sole basis of an immigration detainer request violates the Fourth Amendment. Three federal courts have found that such detention raises constitutional concerns and that counties are liable in damages to the individuals they detain on that basis, according to the release.

In August, Adam D. Snyder, chief counsel, Opinions & Advice for the Maryland Attorney Generals Office, reached a similar conclusion finding that an ICE detainer alone does not mandate or authorize the continued detention of someone beyond when they would be released under state law.

Thus, if a local law enforcement officer does not have probable cause to extend custody over the subject of an ICE detainer, the continued detention likely constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment, he wrote in a letter of advice to Washington County Sheriff Douglas W. Mullendore.

In June, the ACLU of Maryland urged all counties in the state to stop complying with the detainer requests. Councilwoman Nancy Navarro requested in September that Leggett conform county policy to match the OMalleys recent directive on the issue.

In her request, Navarro (D-Dist. 4) of Silver Spring said she understood from Arthur Wallenstein, director of the County Department of Correction and Rehabilitation, that the practice locally was to contact ICE when there is a detainer in the system and the individual is available, even if local matters are concluded.

My understanding is that Montgomery Countys policy for responding to ICE civil detainer requests may be inconsistent with [state policy], Navarro wrote.

Wallenstein was not able to be reached Tuesday for comment.

More here:
Montgomery County will not hold immigrants without probable cause -- Gazette.Net