Mediaboss Marketing

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday from a Madison County man who claimed police violated the Fourth Amendment when they discovered more than 170,000 images of child pornography on his personal computer.

By doing so, the justices upheld an eight-year prison sentence of Donald Lemasters of London.

A state court of appeals last year ruled that while the Fourth Amendment protects Americans against unreasonable search and seizure, Lemasters had no reasonable expectation of privacy when he downloads information or photos from a subscriber.

The justices did not make any comment, but simply refused to hear Lemasters appeal. Lemasters pleaded no contest in 2012 to charges that he downloaded photos of nude children, with some involved in sexual acts. There was no evidence that Lemasters took any of the photos himself.

In 2011, a detective with a task force that investigates use of child pornography photos in the area asked a judge for an investigative subpoena to determine the user of an IP address suspected of downloading childrens pornography.

After learning the IP address belonged to Lemasters, Madison County sheriff officers obtained a search warrant and discovered the images on Lemasters computer and DVDs he had made from the images he downloaded.

In a separate case from Ohio, the justices vacated a ruling last year by the Ohio Supreme Court that upheld a 10-year mandatory sentence of David Willan of Akron for mortgage and securities violations.

The justices ruled that the states high court needed to consider a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision that a mandatory sentence needs to be considered by a jury before it can be imposed.

Andrea Whitaker, an attorney for Willan, said the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court could lead to a much shorter sentence for Willan.

Read more here:
U.S. Supreme Court rules against area man in child porn case

By Joe Carbonari

The question first becomes, How much of our privacy are we willing to cede to those entrusted to protect us? Then we must ask, How are we, average citizens, to know enough to rationally make the decisions required? Realistically, we cant. Too much secrecy and technology is involved.

After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks we naturally tilted more to the security side, sacrificing some privacy. That was understandable. Now many of us feel that we may have tilted too far, particularly where metadata is concerned. Our phone records, emails, financial information, and health history are all either compromised or at risk. Shall we shrug and acquiesce? What actual power do we have?

We have the power of the ballot. We have the power to choose who makes the big decisions for us, what processes they must follow and who checks up on them. Their courage, intelligence, and character are key. Please choose carefully.

By Tim Baldwin

For example, the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that our DNA is subject to privacy interests, that governments use of drones is limited by the Fourth Amendment, and that government cannot affix GPS tracking on vehicles without a warrant.

It is amazing a constitutional Amendment ratified in 1791 still has a significant impact on limiting government action. This proves, in part, that Amendments to the Constitution (see, Article V, U.S.C.) work to limit government power.

The executives of government naturally care less for privacy rights, given the nature of their law-enforcement role; but thankfully state and federal judiciaries have largely and consistently been faithful at limiting big government tendencies through the Fourth Amendment.

Originally posted here:
Big Government Meets the Fourth Amendment

SCOTUSblog on camera: Orin Kerr -- Part five
Part five -- The generalists "The Roberts Court"; "the Fourth Amendment Court"; and understanding constitutional values, issues and change.

By: SCOTUSblogoncamera

See the rest here:
SCOTUSblog on camera: Orin Kerr -- Part five - Video

Is it legal for police to read or search through your mail?

Your mail is one thing you'd probably prefer the cops not to peek at, but in many cases they can. Still, the Fourth Amendment protects our papers and effects from unlawful search and seizure. That potentially includes some of your most intimate letters and private correspondence, depending on the circumstances.

So when is it OK for law-enforcement officers to read or sift through your mail?

With a Warrant

The Fourth Amendment is not a complete shield from law enforcement peering into our lives. They can still do so with a proper warrant. Officers can search your mail with a search warrant which is supported by probable cause and granted by a judge or magistrate.

But even without a warrant, there are a few situations in which police can still read your mail.

In Your Trash

The U.S. Supreme Court determined more than 25 years ago that trash left out on your curb for collection is not within your reasonable expectation of privacy. That means cops are free to rummage through it without a warrant.

If you're worried about sensitive mail being thrown away, you may want to consider a paper shredder -- though investigators have been known to pain-stakingly piece together shreeded documents.

In Your Mailbox

Visit link:
Can Police Read or Search Through Your Mail?

Fourth Amendment wma

By: Nikki Schubert

Read more from the original source:

Fourth Amendment wma - Video