Prosecutors In Vermont Don't Want Limits On Computer Search Warrant

from the why? dept

The EFF has the unfortunate story of how prosecutors in Vermont, doing an investigation into an identity theft, requested an incredibly broad warrant to seize computer equipment, CDs, mobile phones and other devices in someone's home. The judge realized this might be way too broad, and limited the warrant, "putting reasonable bounds on the search, as well as including basic privacy protections for information and data not connected to the identity theft under investigation." It's hard to see how anyone could argue against such limits... but apparently, the prosecutors feel otherwise. They filed a petition in the Vermont Supreme Court to allow the original, overly broad warrant be allowed instead. I can't fathom the argument for such a fishing expedition. Warrants are supposed to be narrowly executed around the specific crime being investigated. The court limits made sense here, and yet prosecutors seem to be admitting that they want to go fishing for anything else they can find as well.

Filed Under: computers, privacy, searches, vermont, warrants

New Bill Introduced To Outlaw GPS Tracking Without Consent

from the oh-big-brother dept

We've been noting, over the past few years, the growing number of lawsuits involving the legality of law enforcement tracking people's movements with GPS devices. There are some mixed and contradictory rulings, which means it'll all likely hit the Supreme Court at some point, but a new bill in the Senate from Ron Wyden and in the House from Rep. Jason Chaffetz apparently seeks to do an end-run around all of that and have Congress clarify the law by saying it's illegal to track that kind of data without a warrant. The bill using yet another "cute" acronym is the "Geolocational Privacy and Surveillance Act" -- or the GPS Act. Get it?

I do wonder if some of the prohibitions on "intercepting" such information go too far -- though there is a "normal course of business" exception in the law. The key focus of the bill really seems on law enforcement, and requiring them to take the not-at-all-onerous step of first getting a warrant. This is eminently reasonable, but you can bet that law enforcement is going to go ballistic about how this bill will "harm" investigations and put people at risk. Get ready for the fear mongering... Update: The bill is to be introduced next week, and there may be some changes from the current draft I was basing this on...

Filed Under: 4th amendment, gps, jason chaffetz, privacy, ron wyden, tracking, warrants

What 4th Amendment? Indiana Sheriff Says Random, Warrantless House To House Searches Are Okay

from the thanks-Indiana-supreme-court dept

We've been covering a large number of situations and legal rulings lately that appear to suggest that the 4th Amendment is pretty much null and void for much of the US. With the news of a bad Supreme Court ruling concerning the ability of police to invade a home without a warrant, so long as they create circumstances that make it seem urgent, we're pointed to an even more ridiculous ruling in the Indiana Supreme Court that effectively legalizes the ability of law enforcement to enter any home without a warrant. Why? The court basically says that it's "against public policy" to require a warrant:

"We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence."

In other words, the gradual (and, at times, not so gradual) destruction of the 4th Amendment is used to destroy it even more.

It appears that law enforcement in Indiana is wasting no time in recognizing the power this gives them. Radley Balko points us to the news that one Indiana Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., from Newton County, has now stated that it's legal to conduct house-to-house warrantless searches (see update below). According to him, everyone should be fine with such an invasion of privacy, because it means they can catch criminals:

According to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful following the Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme Court ruling issued on May 12th, 2011. When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal.

It's as if they don't care that they're making a total mockery of the 4th Amendment and its important history.

Update: The sheriff in question has put out a statement contradicting the original story:

On May 16, 2011, I was contacted by a reporter of an internet radio station. Her question concerned a recent Indiana Supreme Court decision, allowing police officers to make random warrantless searches. I advised her that I was not clear on that particular ruling; she then asked how the Sheriff’s Office conducted searches of residences. I informed her that searches were only conducted with a warrant, probable cause or when an officer is in hot pursuit. When questioned about the Supreme Court ruling, I advised her that as police officers, we enforce those laws set forth by our legislative branch. This reporter then asked about the violation of Constitutional Rights. This State Supreme Court ruling in my opinion cannot override our U.S. Constitutional Rights and I’m sure this state ruling will be revisited.

When I was asked about my thoughts on random searches and how people would react, I gave her the scenario of looking for a criminal or escapee. I advised her that if people were aware of this situation, they would gladly let you search a detached garage, outbuilding, etc., if it meant keeping them safe, but this would only be after securing permission.

This court ruling is just open for lawsuits if a police officer would attempt a random search without due cause. Somewhere in this conversation things were definitely taken out of context. I'm now quoted as saying the Sheriff's Office will be conducting random house to house searches.

I want the citizens of Newton County to rest assured that no member of the Newton County Sheriff’s Office will enter the property of another person without first having a warrant or probable cause to do so. I strongly stand behind my oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, as well as that of the State of Indiana.

At this point it's the reporter's word against the sheriff's. It does seem odd that the reporter does not directly quote the sheriff, but does state that he "emphatically" said he would use such house-to-house searches...

Filed Under: 4th amendment, don hartman, home searches, indiana, privacy, warrants

RIAA Calls 4th Amendment Passe: Pushes For Warrantless Searches

from the entitlement? dept

Wow. It's been obvious to plenty of people for quite some time that the RIAA and the MPAA don't much care about things like free speech and due process rights afforded to people under the Constitution (see COICA and the PROTECT IP Act). But, I hadn't realized they'd gone so far as to blatantly disregard something like the 4th Amendment. Obviously, as we've been discussing lately, it seems like all three branches of the federal government have decided to crush the 4th Amendment, but they usually try to at least pretend that they're paying attention to the Constitution.

Not any more, apparently.

The RIAA has been pushing the state of California to pass a new law that would allow completely warrantless searches for law enforcement, allowing them to enter and search any CD or DVD manufacturing plant without either notice or a court order.

Yes, let's repeat that: the RIAA is pushing a law that would let law enforcement, without any oversight, without any probable cause, without any notice, enter and search any company premises that involves pressing CDs or DVDs, in order to assure that they're legal. Oh, and if said law enforcement discovers repeat violations, fines can be up to $250,000.

The RIAA claims that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply here because of all the recent attacks on the 4th Amendment by the courts:

The RIAA argued that courts had carved out 4th Amendment exceptions already. So far, it said, warrantless searches have been allowed at such businesses as automobile junkyards and repair shops, mines, gun and liquor stores, nursing homes, massage parlors, pawn shops and wholesale fish dealers.

The common trait, the trade group contended, was that the businesses were in "closely regulated" industries in which "the pervasiveness and regularity of the government's regulation reduces the owner's expectation of privacy in his business records."

It gets worse. The RIAA's Marcus Cohen honestly makes this sound like it's no big deal:

"We're literally talking about walking into a plant, walking up to the line and ensuring that, indeed, the discs are in compliance," he said. "I don't think the scope of the search is something a regulator needs to be worried about."

Oh really? And how about the RIAA member labels? How about, in exchange, they let some of us walk into their offices, take a look at their books and ensure that their royalty payments to artists are in compliance? I don't think the scope of such a review is anything to be worried about, right?

And, here's the crazy thing. Despite numerous legal experts saying that the bill is almost certainly unconstitutional, it sounds like it has a decent chance of passing. It's sponsored by California state Senator Alex Padilla and has already been approved by two separate committees, and will be heard on the Senate floor on Monday. If it passes there, it'll go to the Assembly. You can see the full text of the bill, SB 550 at that link, or embedded below.

It's really an astounding showing of the sense of entitlement of the RIAA that it feels that the 4th Amendment shouldn't apply. The RIAA and its member labels should be ashamed of themselves.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, alex padilla, california, cds, dvds, warrants
Companies: riaa

4th Amendment? What 4th Amendment? Supremes Say Police Can Create Conditions To Enter Home Without A Warrant

from the did-they-really-say-that? dept

We've been discussing various ways that our government and the courts have been slowly chipping away at the 4th Amendment, what with warrantless wiretaps, searching laptops, TSA agents groping people, etc. And the Supreme Court just took a huge chunk out of the 4th Amendment in saying that police can raid homes without a warrant if there are "exigent circumstances" -- even if those "exigent circumstances" are created by the police themselves.

The law, to date, had been that police cannot enter a home without a warrant unless they had both (a) probable cause and (b) "exigent circumstances" in which getting a warrant would not make sense. In this case, police were searching for a drug dealer who had gone into an apartment complex. Outside of one apartment, they smelled marijuana -- which created probable cause. At this point, they should have obtained a warrant. Instead, they banged on the door and shouted police. At which point they heard a scramble inside, and busted in the door, claiming that they believed the scramble was the possible destruction of the drugs. The argument then was that this noise -- even though it was entirely created due to police action -- represented exigent circumstances that allowed them to bust in the door without a warrant. The Kentucky Supreme Court said that while the noise might be exigent circumstances, since it was illegally created by the police, it could not be used.

Tragically, the Supreme Court -- by an 8-to-1 vote -- has now disagreed, saying that this is perfectly consistent with the 4th Amendment. With all due respect to the 8 Justices and the Court, I can't see how that's reasonable at all. This sets up a dreadful situation which will be abused regularly by law enforcement. It lets them create yet another situation where they may avoid oversight, by creating their own exigent circumstances, and then using that as an excuse for avoiding a warrant and any required oversight or limitations. I believe that Justice Ginsburg's dissent is much more compelling. Her dissent points out that exigent circumstances are only supposed to be used in very rare circumstances when getting a warrant is not possible or practical. Yet, in this case, the police easily could have secured a warrant quickly upon smelling marijuana.

That heavy burden has not been carried here. There was little risk that drug-related evidence would have been destroyed had the police delayed the search pending a magistrate’s authorization. As the Court recognizes, "[p]ersons in possession of valuable drugs are unlikely to destroy them unless they fear discovery by the police." ... Nothing in the record shows that, prior to the knock at the apartment door, the occupants were apprehensive about police proximity.

In fact, she notes that "Home intrusions, the Court has said, are indeed 'the chief evil against which . . .the Fourth Amendment is directed.'" So it seems positively ridiculous to claim that such a home invasion is acceptable under the 4th Amendment. This is a tragically bad ruling by the Supreme Court that will have massive and dangerous consequences. We already have law enforcement pushing the boundaries of individual privacy rights, and now they have even more tools to take that further.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, home searches, police, supreme court, warrants

Some Feds Wanted To Find A Loophole To Avoid Warrants When Using FBI's Homemade Spyware

from the slippery-slope dept

While it's been widely reported for a few years now that the FBI has some spyware, called the "computer and internet protocol address verifier," or CIPAV, for tracking down certain computer users. However, some new Freedom of Information Act-released documents provide some more details, including that other government agencies have requested to use the tool, and that there's been some serious disagreement among the feds about how it can and should be used legally (and if it's always used in legal ways).

[EFF] officials have raised concerns about documents showing that FBI agents at times employed inconsistent methods for gaining authorization to install the tracer. Their email messages talk about using a "trespasser exception" to avoid obtaining a warrant. One message recommends citing the "All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)." The group noted that one September 2007 message indicates some agents felt spyware searches do not require any legal process.

"There seems like there was a lot of back-and-forth," Lynch said.

The 2007 email stated, "I still think that use of [redacted] is consensual monitoring without need for process; In my mind, no different than sitting in a chat room and tracking participants; on/off times or for that matter sitting on P2P networks and find out who is offering KP" -- in a likely reference to law enforcement's practice of searching through file-sharing networks for sex offenders exchanging child pornography.

The thing is, it seems like this kind of thing would likely easily get a warrant approval in most cases where it was really necessary. Why is it that our federal government so often seems to hate having to go through such basic oversight efforts? After all, the news just came out that the FISA court approved all 1,506 requests from the government to electronically monitor suspects. It's not as if FISA is a difficult process to go through...

Filed Under: fbi, spyware, warrants

Police Using Skype To Get Warrants While At A Crime Scene

from the virtual-courtroom dept

In this digital and connected age, many folks have discovered that the concept of a physical office is more and more outdated. Many of us can (and often do) work from anywhere. Apparently, a court in Florida is working under the same basic thought process as well. Copycense points us to the news that a judge in South Florida is working with police to let them use email and Skype while still at a crime scene to get a warrant. As one of the police officers noted: "It's like a virtual office and courtroom." So will other court functions start taking place this way soon as well? Who needs to sit around a courtroom for a trial when everyone can just login via Skype? Of course, you could (quite reasonably) argue that this is really no different than just using a phone to do the same thing...

Filed Under: crime scene, email, skype, warrants

Just Because A Judge Signs A Warrant, Doesn't Make It Legal...

from the just-saying dept

One of the regular "defenses" we've seen in the comments for why Homeland Security's seizures of various domains -- including ones that have substantial protected speech -- are "legal" is because a magistrate judge signed off on the affidavit filed by Homeland Security and the Justice Department. Of course, that's not necessarily true, as it appears that the magistrate judges in these cases failed to abide by the prevailing case law that requires a higher standard of proof than was provided by Homeland Security, but we'll leave that discussion for another day. A separate point is that just because a judge signs off on it, doesn't make such things legal.

As an example of this in a somewhat different context, Julian Sanchez points us to the story of a San Francisco pot bust gone wrong. In this case, the San Francisco police filed for a warrant to search 243 Diamond St. for drugs and associated proceeds for drugs. The warrant described the address as a "two-story, one-unit" building, and the officer claimed he had staked it out for two days and two nights.

It turns out that 243 Diamond is neither two stories, nor is it a one-unit building. It's three stories and two units, and the upper unit (the one raided by the SFPD) happens to be rented to a guy named Clark Freshman... who also just so happens to be a law professor. He told the SFPD and DEA agents who raided his place that they were breaking the law, and they "laughed at" him. Except Freshman may get the last laugh, as he's planning to sue the government. The article quotes another lawyer saying that in similar cases "people have sued and collected substantial settlements" and noting that "whomever is representing the government better get out his checkbook."

While not quite the same, there do seem to be a fair number of similarities with some of the domain seizures. In both cases, the affidavit filed had some very serious errors -- the types of errors that shouldn't have been made. In both cases -- especially with the mooo.com seizure -- perfectly innocent people were severely impacted by these mistakes in the process. Just because a judge rubber stamps a warrant, it doesn't automatically make that warrant legal.

Filed Under: due process, warrants

EFF Finds Evidence Of Over 40,000 Intelligence Violations By The FBI Since 9/11

from the yes,-40,000 dept

We've pointed out, multiple times, how the FBI has been caught abusing the Patriot Act with things like using National Security Letters to get information it had no legal right to obtain. Even worse, when President Obama issued a blanket absolution for the FBI breaking the law it seemed like no one batted an eye. In fact, you may not have even heard about it, because the press just didn't think that breaking the law to spy on Americans is really that big of a deal.

So, once again, it seems unlikely that this story will get much attention, but the EFF has, via a series of Freedom of Information Act requests, determined that the FBI may have committed over 40,000 intelligence violations since 9/11, 2001.

Yes: 40,000.

On top of that, the research uncovered evidence of the FBI "lying in declarations to courts, using improper evidence to obtain grand jury subpoenas, and accessing password-protected files without a warrant." And yet, why aren't we hearing much about this? Why aren't there stories everywhere covering this massive abuse by the government? Instead, we just get Congress rubber stamping a renewal of the Patriot Act, without even taking into consideration what's happening.

Filed Under: abuse of power, due process, fbi, patriot act, privacy, warrants

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.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, cell towers, obama administration, warrants