Yet Another Court Explains To The Obama Administration That The 4th Amendment Means You Need To Get A Warrant
from the it's-sad-that-we-have-to-keep-doing-this dept
Just after an appeals court explained that, yes, emails are protected by the 4th amendment, another appeals court has ruled that cell tower connection info is also protected by the 4th Amendment. Basically, law enforcement (supported by the Obama administration) have been claiming that if they're just getting info on who was connected to a specific cell tower, that it didn't require a warrant at all.Earlier this year, we noted that the Federal Circuit had rejected a similar request, saying that there was no probable cause, and in this case, the 3rd Circuit appeals court said that you do, in fact, need a warrant. Combined with other recent rulings that putting a GPS device on a suspect's car without a warrant violated the 4th Amendment and that the famed warrantless wiretaps violated the 4th Amendment, and you see a whole bunch of 4th Amendment violations by our leaders lately.
Now, here's the part I don't understand: why is the government so anxious to wiretap/spy on people without a warrant? Getting a warrant is not difficult for the most part. The courts tend to defer to the government on such things most of the time. It's not as if the courts are saying law enforcement can't get this info. They're just saying you have to go through basic due process to prove there's a reason for doing what they're doing. And yet the Obama administration (like the Bush administration before it) seem horrified at the idea that there should be some basic oversight over spying on Americans.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 4th amendment, cell towers, obama administration, warrants
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Question for the USAians
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question for the USAians
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Question for the USAians
Actully solve the worlds energy problems for 5-10 dollar a Mwh and you wipe out the US governmnets pension system. Bankruptcy of the federal governmnet 2-8 years later. No revolution required.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Question for the USAians
In the quest for social stability though, pragmatism will always be a more powerful tool than sensationalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Question for the USAians
Funny thing that glory and honor crap. I would love to see a history book with a scientist in a lab coat being quoted as saying "Yeah I really fraked up the US government with that one little equation."
When people think of revolutions they think guns, tanks, bombs, airplanes. The best way is to find the weak points that will cause the system to collapse into itself without firing a shot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Change... not for the better.
Does anyone have an example of Obama fighting for our rights? You would think the EFF and ACLU would be filing less lawsuits against the government but it seems as if they're pulling double time keeping up with the craziness.
I'm a little shocked and disappointed his administration is taking such an anti-consumer, anti-rights stance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Change... not for the better.
Where I am encouraged is that the Court's are now reflecting on the implications of this disregard and calling them on it. The farther we get from 9/11, the more we realize the sky is not falling and there is no need to panic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Change... not for the better.
Not surprised that it hasn't changed in two years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Change... not for the better.
Thats what the FBI is for, to create fake terrorists, and make us believe the sky is falling. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Change... not for the better.
This ruling is on the appellate level, meaning there are still other steps to take. Remember, there are any number of lower court rulings that say the government does not need a warrant for this sort of stuff.
There is potential that the feds could carry this case all the way to the supreme court, seeing that it appears to be significant and relevant.
So it isn't the "Obama adminstration", rather it is the US government as a whole. Throwing Obama's name in there is a nice attempt to pin the tail on the donkey, but the original donkey is from the other side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Change... not for the better.
Despite running on a platform of unprecedented transparency, Obama has doubled-down on Bush's terrible record. Not only does his administration deny more FOIA requests than Bush, but he's pushing for the power to use unmanned drones to assassinate US citizens overseas (Bush is probably sitting around in his ranch going, "Damn, why didn't I think of that?")
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Change... not for the better.
Er, yeah, right, I'm gonna call "bullshit" on this one. I mean, really, I like a good govt conspiracy argument as much as the next guy, but ASSASSINATE US CITIZENS OVERSEAS? REALLY? Citation or you are full of shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Change... not for the better.
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/obama-administration-claims-unchecked-authority- kill-americans-outside-combat-zone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Change... not for the better.
There, blow it out your ass...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Change... not for the better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Change... not for the better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Change... not for the better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Change... not for the better.
So it isn't the "Obama adminstration", rather it is the US government as a whole.
So which branch would be appealing this to the Supreme Court? Certainly not the judicial branch. The legislative branch doesn't have anything to do with it. I guess that leaves the executive branch, which is led by - oh look, by the President! So yeah, it's the Obama administration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Change... not for the better.
CBMHB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Change... not for the better.
It was reported, at the end of the Bush administration, that many political appointees were seeking, & being awarded, permanent civil service positions.
I wonder how many members of "the Obama Administration" are these hold-overs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Change... not for the better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Change... not for the better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Then again, Poe's Law is a law for a reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Terrorist Connections Inside the Government
The Reanimated zombie of Joe McCarthy arises from the grave making weird, illogical, unsupportable accusations about links betwen questioning authority and "terrorism", the communist boogeyman of the 21st century.
Tell you what: I'll publicly announce my connection to AlQueda right after you publicly announce your name, professional affiliations and employer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...and, well, we just can't have that, now can we?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Now that would be a news story ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who is Mike Masnick really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
FTA: """...why is the government so anxious to wiretap/spy on people without a warrant?"""
All hilarity aside AC, your first sentence is in fact the correct answer.
"""Getting a warrant creates a paper trail."""
That's why, Mike, pure and simple. Plausible deniability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Happy Paper Trails, to You.
CBMHB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Happy Paper Trails, to You.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Mike, is this one part of your cell?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And that's a real requirement. If it turns out the warrant was wrongly-issued, after the fact the defendant can move to exclude the evidence collected. The exclusionary rule isn't a slam-dunk, but it does get applied and it does have teeth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Can't, or are prohibited by law from doing so? Because lately those two are not the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ha.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ha.... You Need to Get a Warrant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ha.
2) Your so-called "Liberal" friends have little or nothing in common with real Liberals. I think they are more "retarded" than Liberal if they actually said that Obama was the "second coming".
3) Given point 2: You hang out with retarded people who you misidentify as "Liberals".
4) I gave Libertarianism a try for a couple of years. They are basically Republicans who don't believe in the war on drugs. Otherwise, just as moronic as the other two parties.
5) What does "Centrist" mean anyway? Are you right in the middle between Dumbass and Dimwit? Congratulations. My advice: Pick something to stand for. Being in the middle or undecided is Pussy Territory.
CBMHB
(Committed Revolutionary)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ha.
No doubt Libertarians claim to be fiscal conservatives, but how do you equate that to today's Republicans?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ha.
One of the reasons I joined them was because I believed in their mission to get the Government out of everyone's personal business. Problem is, these days companies are considered persons (Corporations), and Libertarians don't seem to have a problem with that. I was "educated" at several Harry Browne events that everyone deserved to have the Government out of their affairs: The guy down the street, the small businessman in town, the regional chain store, the national mall brand, and the multi-national weapons conglomerate. All the same as far as they're concerned.
Inasmuch as I'm a firm believer that the "Corporation" is one of the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse, and its invention will go down in history as being one of the reasons for the fall of the American Empire, I found the Libertarian favor for, much like the Republican lust of "Free Markets", "Open Competition" and "Unfettered Business Practice" to be very much akin to their Pachydermous brethren.
In truth, Republicans, "Conservatives" and Capitalists have no love for truly Free Markets, choosing instead to form closed trade alliances whenever possible - No interest in Open Competition, opting instead for Monopolies whenever they can get away with them - And define Unfettered as "Completely Deregulated" if anyone will allow it.
Don't get me wrong; Libertarians have lots of good ideas, and their heart is in the right place, but any belief system that says the Governor on the Engine of Capitalism should be removed because it's bothersome...Is metaphorically speaking, a teenager with one foot in the grave and another on the gas pedal.
Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis/Banking Meltdown anyone? You can thank Deregulation for that Gem.
(and yes, I blame both parties for that. Both. And one more time for you illiterate mouth-breathers...BOTH-ah)
CBMHB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ha.
Wow, you must have hit liquefy on your literary blender to so thoroughly mix that metaphor! I like it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obama???
Obama took office, but that doesn't mean that the loads of politicians that took office because they were hard on terrorism are gone. They are still there in force and don't want to have to deal with things like the Constitution when they want to get something done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obama???
It's been two years. It's on his head now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obama???
I don't accuse of Obama doing anything new, I point out that he isn't doing anything different. When your platform is 'change' and nothing changes, you can expect to get called on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Act of a patriot or Patriot Act?
Obama and every President forward will seek to increase and �improve� the power of the presidency regardless of party affiliation. They do it to �protect� us and their legacy. Its human nature to seek more control when threatened and terrorism is the inexhaustible source that will help every president challenge the Constitution under the guise of protection. We the People need our representatives to restructure the Patriot Act for a more focused purpose or remove it all together.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Touch�
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
All of which would need to participate in removing the titt that they are all attached to... Would you give up your sole source of income without a fight?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well, if the government didn't take my money in the first place...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bias showing
It is this kind of partisan mindless crap that makes some of your readers wonder if you can be trusted at all.
To be clear - this kind of government activity is wrong. IT has also been actively practiced by every administration since at least Nixon and probably long before that. It isn't the administration that is actually doing it - it is the civil service government administration that does not change when President and Houses change. It would be the responsibility perhaps of the administration to change those entrenched policies but whether or not an administration tries (and I doubt we'd ever know if they did or did not) it is unlikely to make any difference in the long run.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bias showing
I might disagree with Mike sometimes, but I've seen a fairly consistent tone of indifference, or at least universal incrimination, when TD has mentioned politicians from either of the parties in power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bias showing
This is not true. I was not a fan, at all, of the previous administration and called them on similar things. If anything I really did hope that the new administration would be much better. I'm calling them out, it's because I'm disappointed that they appear to be just as bad, if not worse, than the previous one.
I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican (nor any organized political party or philosophy). My position is not partisan at all. This is also why I don't name the party that politicians belong to, because I think it turns the debates too partisan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: bias showing
Then you are a Democrat - Will Rogers established this many years ago now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bias showing
No, back then it was "the Bush administration". Now it's "the Obama administration". Funny how that works after an election, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They want to stay a step ahead of everyone and be able to see what EVERYONE is doing at all times
It should scare the entire country
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So...
CBMHB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny, for a man who was a Constitutional Law Professor,
The trend started with Bush II and has been continuing with great gusto no matter what the American people have to say about it.
That's how the TSA, the Homeland Security Administration and a whole host of other entities are getting their power. They just push and push until someone says, "oh, just do it."
They took the phrase "We can do it" literally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Based on the attempt at the Total Information Awareness program, and some of the details of the whole NSA / Telco program (debacle), I believe the ultimate goal is to monitor all cellular and or internet traffic.
Based on that, the rational for opposing warrants is 2 fold:
1. Legality: If they can get the courts to agree that it's "OK" (legal) to grab cell connection info or ips for internet communications or whatever without a warrant (and without oversight for probable cause). Then, it follows that it's also OK to just grab all the traffic info, all the time. So an opposite court ruling than the one mentioned above makes the whole thing, somewhat, legally justifiable.
2. Practicality: If it was OK to just grab all the traffic, it wouldn't be feasible get a warrant for all the intercepts. It would require billions of warrants and there would be absolutely no probable cause for most, and
At that point, technically, all you'd need is to be plugged in to one of the main communication hubs. This is exactly what the NSA did with their warrant-less wire-tapping program. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy#Technical_and_operational_deta ils
Now, they are just trying to figure out a way to make it legally justifiable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not that difficult
Normally these things take days, but sometimes they can get blown out into weeks for simple procedural issues, and that occasional delay on what might be critical information is what they're trying to avoid. I don't agree with it, and wouldn't be willing to give up 4th amendment rights to prevent another attack, but I don't think that what they are asking is completely out of touch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not that difficult
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paperwork breeds laziness
So it's easy to see why law enforcement wants to skip the warrants. They're a bunch of lazy asses that don't want to file the paperwork and have it approved before they take what they consider to be the right actions, 4th amendment be damned. They just skip the "change requests" and implement the solution. In my job, if I do that and jack things up, I'd get shown the door. Someone needs to start showing these clowns that circumvent the protective measures in place (i.e. the 4th amendment) the door as its obvious that they are jacking up the system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your RIGHTS!
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured - They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Tittle 18 USC Sec. 31. Definitions:
"(6) Motor vehicle. - The term "motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for COMMERCIAL PURPOSES on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo."
Tittle 18 USC Sec. 9. Vessel of the United States:
The term "vessel of the United States", as used in this title, means a vessel belonging in whole or in part to the United States, or any citizen thereof, or any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof.
More Info. Page 1 Page 2 � 329 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 11 Am. Jur. 2. LIBERTY
Cut and Past. "American Jurisprudence" It's typically the very first link, it's titled as above (((Page 1 Page 2 � 329 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 11 Am. Jur. 2. LIBERTY))) (PAGE 1135)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]