Tag Archives: Fourth Amendment

Justin Amash Amendment To Stop NSA Data Collection Voted Down In House

By The Huffington Post News Editors

WASHINGTON — Members of the House of Representatives engaged in a heated debate Wednesday over an amendment from Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) to halt the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of phone record data.

“We’re here today for a very simple reason: to defend the Fourth Amendment, to defend the privacy of each and every American,” Amash said as he introduced his measure. Lawmakers’ votes, he said, would answer one simple question, “Do we oppose the suspicionless collection of every American’s phone records?”

Apparently, the answer was no. The House voted 217-205 to defeat the amendment Wednesday evening.

Read More…

…read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Huffington Post

NJ court: Warrants needed for cellphone tracking

Police in New Jersey will soon have to get warrants if they want to track suspects using cellphone data, the state’s Supreme Court ruled in a decision that affords citizens here more privacy protections than they enjoy under federal law.

In a unanimous ruling Thursday stemming from the arrest of a burglary suspect in 2006, the court directed that beginning in 30 days, all law enforcement officers must get a search warrant based on probable cause if they want to get access to cellphone locating data. Since 2010, police have had to satisfy a lower standard of demonstrating there are “reasonable grounds” to believe the information would be relevant to an investigation.

“No one buys a cell phone to share detailed information about their whereabouts with the police,” Chief Justice Stuart Rabner wrote. “That was true in 2006 and is equally true today. Citizens have a legitimate privacy interest in such information.”

Rabner noted that federal courts have been divided over the issue of cellphone tracking by law enforcement. In some other areas, he wrote, New Jersey’s constitution goes farther than the Fourth Amendment in protecting citizens from unreasonable search and seizure — particularly in previous cases involving Internet usage, bank records and hotel telephone records.

“When people make disclosures to phone companies and other providers to use their services, they are not promoting the release of personal information to others. Instead, they can reasonably expect that their personal information will remain private,” Rabner wrote. “For those reasons, we have departed from federal case law that takes a different approach.”

Rubin Sinins, an attorney who argued on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and a state criminal defense lawyers association, called Thursday’s decision “vitally important.”

“I’m not surprised it was unanimous because the basic premise of the opinion is quite logical and consistent with citizens’ reasonable expectation of privacy in their cellphone usage,” he said.

In the 2006 case, police tracked Robert Earls to a motel on Route 9 in Howell using information provided by T-Mobile about the location of a cellphone believed to be in his possession. When he opened the door to his room, police saw items they believed had been stolen and arrested him. He eventually pleaded guilty to burglary and theft.

It wasn’t immediately clear how Earls’ case would be affected by the ruling since a lower …read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox US News

New Jersey Supreme Court rules warrants needed for phone tracking

Cellphone users have a reasonable expectation of privacy of their cellphone location information, and police must obtain a search warrant before accessing that information, the Supreme Court of New Jersey ruled Thursday.

“When people make disclosures to phone companies and other providers to use their services, they are not promoting the release of personal information to others,” wrote Chief Justice Stuart Rabner in an unanimous ruling on an appeal. “Instead, they can reasonably expect that their personal information will remain private.”

The issue of boundaries in the use of cellphone data by law enforcement agencies has figured in other courts and state legislatures. The Montana legislature passed a law recently requiring police and other agencies to obtain a search warrant from a court before tracking a person using location information from an electronic device.

Federal courts have been divided on the issue of cellphone tracking by law enforcement. But historically the New Jersey Constitution has offered greater protection to New Jersey residents than the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Rabner observed. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

To read this article in full or to leave a comment, please click here

…read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at PCWorld

Video: House Dismantles Fourth Amendment While America Distracted

By Daniel Noe

US Department Of Justice Seal SC Justice official: No reading of Miranda rights

While Americans were focusing on the Boston Marathon bombings and defending the Second Amendment to the Constitution from the Senate’s efforts to eliminate guns, the House was busy about the business of destroying the Fourth Amendment.

After two days of debate this week, the House passed CISPA, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, by a vote of 288-127, with 18 abstaining. The legislation would allow the federal government to engage private sector firms — think Google — in the business of monitoring your emails, postings and user data for nebulous “threat information” which would then be shared “voluntarily” without need for any sort of warrant.

The IRS and other federal agencies already have policies in place stating their belief that they are allowed to waltz through your data anytime they please, so CISPA seems primarily crafted to protect the Facebooks, Twitters, Yahoos, Sprints and other electronic communications businesses from legal reprisals.

Amendments that would have required data to be made anonymous before being handed over were defeated. Among the defeated amendments was a proposal to allow companies to keep their privacy policies intact and legally enforceable.

Democrat Rep. Jared Polis told CNET that CISPA would ensure that firms that hand over private user data would be “completely exonerated from any risk of liability.”

Read more at Godfather Politics. By Tad Cronn.

From: http://www.westernjournalism.com/house-dismantles-fourth-amendment-while-america-distracted/

Email privacy in focus as Tax Day arrives

The Internal Revenue Service has taken the position it does not need a search warrant to gather email in criminal investigations, despite opposition from lawmakers and privacy advocates and a ruling by a federal appellate court.

Through the Freedom of Information Act, the American Civil Liberties Union obtained 247 pages of IRS records in an attempt to find out whether the agency had ever used only a subpoena to obtain emails. Unlike a warrant, a subpoena does not require law enforcement to show “probable cause” in front of a judge. Probable cause refers to having enough evidence to show that a crime has likely been committed.

Though inconclusive in what the ACLU was looking for, the records show that the IRS has taken the position at least since October 2011 that only a subpoena is needed to obtain emails more than 180 days old, as described in the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act. That position was outlined in a memo written by William Spatz, a senior counsel of the IRS. It is also written in the agency’s current manual of policies and procedures.

“Through their documents, [the IRS seems] to take the position that the Fourth Amendment has nothing to say about their access to people’s emails,” Nathan Wessler, a staff attorney for the ACLU in Washington, D.C., said on Thursday.

To read this article in full or to leave a comment, please click here

From: http://www.csoonline.com/article/731667/IRS_going_against_privacy_tide_on_warrantless_email_search#tk.rss_all

IRS: We Can Read Emails Without Warrant

By Breaking News

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has claimed that agents do not need warrants to read people’s emails, text messages and other private electronic communications, according to internal agency documents.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which obtained the documents through a Freedom of Information Act request, released the information on Wednesday.

In a 2009 handbook, the IRS said the Fourth Amendment does not protect emails because Internet users “do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in such communications.” A 2010 presentation by the IRS Office of General Counsel reiterated the policy.

Read more at Red Flag News. 

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

From: http://www.westernjournalism.com/irs-we-can-read-emails-without-warrant/

Yes, the IRS Can Read Your Emails If It Wants

By Matt Brownell

Filed under: , , ,

#fivemin-widget-blogsmith-image-194432{display:none;} .cke_show_borders #fivemin-widget-blogsmith-image-194432, #postcontentcontainer #fivemin-widget-blogsmith-image-194432{width:570px;height:411px;display:block;}

try{document.getElementById(“fivemin-widget-blogsmith-image-194432″).style.display=”none”;}catch(e){}If you’ve been swapping emails with your crooked accountant about the best way to avoid paying taxes, be aware: The IRS says it has the right to go into your account and read them.

ArsTechnica flags a report from the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a Freedom of Information Act request to find out whether the IRS is reading your emails without a warrant.

The tax-collection agency did not explicitly answer the question of whether its investigative arm always gets a warrant before opening suspects’ emails. But the ACLU says that its review of the documents indicate that it does not.

A bit of background is necessary here. When it comes to getting a warrant to read your email, the relevant law is the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which was enacted way back in 1986. As you might expect, the law is a bit dated: According to the law, a government agency can read your email without a warrant as long as the email has been opened, or if it’s been sitting in your inbox for more than 180 days. Only unopened email that’s been on the server for less than 180 days requires a warrant.

Sponsored Links

It’s exactly the kind of arbitrary distinction you might expect from a law written before email was widely used and understood. And accordingly, a Sixth Circuit appeals court ruled in 2010 that in fact, agencies needed to get a warrant before reading any emails, not just those that were new and unopened.

Before that decision, the IRS was certainly opening emails without warrants — in fact, the ACLU got hold of an internal handbook claiming that the “the Fourth Amendment does not protect communications held in electronic storage.”

The question, then, is whether those practices changed after the Sixth Circuit decision.

The ACLU‘s investigation suggest they did not: A 2011 update to its internal policies maintains the standard that “Investigators can obtain everything in an account except for unopened e-mail or voice mail stored with a provider for 180 days or less” without a warrant.

The IRS has lots of ways to investigate you if it thinks you’ve been hiding something. In addition to searching your email and voicemail, it may also search your social media accounts for incriminating information (though it denies that it may audit you based on something it finds on one of those accounts, insisting that audits are based strictly on your filed return.)

The ACLU is calling on the IRS to amend its procedures to bring them in line with the Fourth Amendment. In the meantime, just be aware that the taxman might sift through your inbox if he thinks you’re holding something back.

Matt Brownell is the consumer and retail reporter for DailyFinance. You can reach him at Matt.Brownell@teamaol.com, and follow him on Twitter

Source: FULL ARTICLE at DailyFinance

Supreme Court Finds The Use Of A Drug-Sniffing Dog To Investigate A Home Unconstitutional

By John Villasenor, Contributor On March 26, the Supreme Court issued its decision [PDF] in Florida v. Jardines, a case involving police use of a drug-sniffing dog on the front porch of a home to detect marijuana growing inside. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Scalia, the Court held that “the government’s use of trained police dogs to investigate the home and its immediate surroundings is a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Forbes Latest

TSA Airport Screening Lawsuit Nears Court Date To Challenge Intrusive Searches

By The Huffington Post News Editors

NEW YORK — A lawsuit against the Transportation Security Administration over its airport security procedures is heading to a court hearing next week, following a Friday order in the case that could give the government extra headaches.

Two Harvard law students brought the suit in 2010, arguing that their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches was being violated by “nude body scanners” and “enhanced pat-downs.” A federal district court threw out their case, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit will hear their appeal on April 4.

In a twist, the 1st Circuit on Friday also granted a request from a group called Freedom To Travel USA to make its own appearance during the oral arguments. The group would like the courts to conduct a fact-finding mission on the intrusiveness of the TSA‘s search techniques before the 1st Circuit rules directly on their constitutionality. If the appeals court agrees, it could begin to peel back some of the secrecy surrounding screening.

Read More…
More on TSA

…read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Huffington Post

Man's Best Friend Is No Friend to the Fourth Amendment

By Harvey Silverglate

The United States Supreme Court showed its bias toward academic degrees, and its predilection to undervalue the dictates of experience on the streets, when it unanimously ruled in mid-February that it did not matter that a drug-sniffing dog might perform abysmally in the field. According to the Court, a search initiated by a dog is kosher as long as the dog sports a certificate that he has gone through one of those controversial ?training? programs that supposedly equip a dog to alert a police handler to the presence of narcotic drugs. This elevation of credentials over demonstrated skill should come as no surprise: Of the nine justices sitting on the high court, five were full-time academics at some point before joining the Court, three were adjunct professors and only one ? Clarence Thomas ? earned his stripes, such as they are, exclusively in the real world. …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Forbes Opinions

Missouri high school to collect students' hair for mandatory drug testing

A Missouri Jesuit high school is planning to collect hair samples from students to conduct random, mandatory drug tests, a plan administrators say is for the students’ own good.

KHSB reports staff members at Rockhurst High School in Kansas City plan to cut off hair samples from 60 random students during the 2013-14 school year and test them for several types of drugs, including marijuana and cocaine. Participation in the program is mandatory.

If a student tests positive, they will have 90 days to produce a negative test.

“Our point is, if we do encounter a student who has made some bad decisions with drugs or alcohol, we will be able to intervene, get the parents involved, get him help if necessary, and then help him get back on a path of better decision making, healthier choices for his life,” Rockhurst Principal Greg Harkness told KHSB.

The school says the record of the student’s failed drug test will be destroyed upon graduation, and will never be sent to any college or university. The school was compelled to enact the new policy after a survey of students proved troubling for the administration.

“What was most alarming for us is that when you asked our students if everyone else is doing it, they said ‘Yes.’ But, in fact, they weren’t. It’s that perception I think among teenagers today that fuels the peer pressure – that there’s this idea that ‘Everyone is doing it, so I guess I have to do it myself,” Harkness told KHSB.

The station reports most parents at the school approve of the new plan, but students are mixed.

The school’s policy is allowed because it is a private institution. A public school would be restricted from doing the same because of the Fourth Amendment, CBS St. Louis reports.

The local chapter of the ACLU says though not illegal, the school’s policy is “a colossal waste of money,” CBS St. Louis reports.

Click for more from KHSB.

Click for more from CBS St. Louis.

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox US News