Supremes to Cops: Get a Warrant if You want to Search Cell Phones

Search warrant web

Meanwhile, back at the much-battered Fourth Amendment, the Supreme Court, in a rare unanimous decision, ruled today that law enforcement needs to get a warrant before it can look through you cell phone.

The justices ruled in favor of the obvious; that cell phones are not like the chewing gum and old ticket stubs languishing in the bottom of your purse or pockets. Cell phones are small, but powerful, computers, that contain files which open up our entire lives.

The Court had issued rulings back in the 1970s allowing police to require suspects to empty their pockets and to use whatever they found there without obtaining a warrant. Law enforcement had extended that right to obtain the contents of a suspect’s pockets without a warrant to their cell phones. Today, the Court ruled that cell phones are not the same thing at all and that seizing and searching a person’s cell phone requires a warrant.

That’s good news for freedom lovers, as well as those who cherish the Fourth Amendment.

From the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON (AP) — In an emphatic defense of privacy in the digital age, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police generally may not search the cellphones of people they arrest without first getting search warrants.

Cellphones are unlike anything else police may find on someone they arrest, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. They are “not just another technological convenience,” he said, but ubiquitous, increasingly powerful computers that contain vast quantities of personal, sensitive information.

“With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans the privacies of life,” Roberts declared. So the message to police about what they should do before rummaging through a cellphone’s contents following an arrest is simple: “Get a warrant.”

Judge Calls NSA Spying ‘Almost Orwellian’

A federal judge has ruled that the government’s latest sally into police statism is unconstitutional.

Calling the practice of sweeping every phone conversation of every American into a government database “almost Orwellian,” Judge Richard Leon ruled that it also violates the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Here, for those who’ve forgotten, is the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Reading that amendment, I can’t help but wonder if the founding fathers might not have agreed with Edward Snowden, the much-maligned, man-without-a-country whistleblower who made the American people aware of what was being done to them. Who, in the final analysis, is more dangerous to our freedoms? Is it Mr Snowden? Or, is it the people in our own government who are building a huge storage facility in Utah to house the data they’ve accumulated from turning every American citizen into a suspect?

Governments all over the world have complained about NSA spying on their citizens. But until Judge Leon stepped into the fray, the only one who was willing to take the risk of speaking up for the American people was one lone whistleblower.

From the Guardian:

A federal judge in Washington ruled on Monday that the bulk collection of Americans’ telephone records by the National Security Agency is likely to violate the US constitution, in the most significant legal setback for the agency since the publication of the first surveillance disclosures by the whistleblower Edward Snowden.

Judge Richard Leon declared that the mass collection of metadata probably violates the fourth amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, and was “almost Orwellian” in its scope. In a judgment replete with literary swipes against the NSA, he said James Madison, the architect of the US constitution, would be “aghast” at the scope of the agency’s collection of Americans’ communications data.

The ruling, by the US district court for the District of Columbia, is a blow to the Obama administration, and sets up a legal battle that will drag on for months, almost certainly destined to end up in the supreme court. It was welcomed by campaigners pressing to rein in the NSA, and by Snowden, who issued a rare public statement saying it had vindicated his disclosures. It is also likely to influence other legal challenges to the NSA, currently working their way through federal courts.

The case was brought by Larry Klayman, a conservative lawyer, and Charles Strange, father of a cryptologist killed in Afghanistan when his helicopter was shot down in 2011. His son worked for the NSA and carried out support work for Navy Seal Team Six, the elite force that killed Osama bin Laden.

In Monday’s ruling, the judge concluded that the pair’s constitutional challenge was likely to be successful. In what was the only comfort to the NSA in a stinging judgment, Leon put the ruling on hold, pending an appeal by the government.

Leon expressed doubt about the central rationale for the program cited by the NSA: that it is necessary for preventing terrorist attacks. “The government does not cite a single case in which analysis of the NSA’s bulk metadata collection actually stopped an imminent terrorist attack,” he wrote.

The Prez Who Hates the Bill of Rights and His Senatorial Minions Write a Little Law

The HHS Mandate. (First Amendment)

Surveilling the American people. (Fourth Amendment)

Gun control. (Second Amendment) 

Those pesky amendments keep getting in the way of better government. 

Thankfully, we have a Congress (who we trust soooo much) who, as everyone knows, always puts the needs of the American people ahead of any special interests, to take care of those little tripping-up points in the Constitution. These are the folks who sat on their thumbs while the administration pushed through a quasi law attacking religious freedom called the HHS Mandate. They are the ones who want to find some loophole to allow them to do away with the right to bear arms. 

Their latest little move is to rescind the legal protections of the free press to protect their sources. They are doing this by “defining” who is the “press” and doing it to their advantage. What they’re doing is limiting First Amendment protections to the “legitimate” (i.e., the corporate) press.

As anyone with half a brain knows, the corporate press is not free. They are owned. And they function more and more as a propaganda tool for the government, which also appears to be owned. 

It follows and it’s easy to follow that if the corporate press is the only legitimate press, then there is no free press. 

Slam dunk and done. First Amendment, (both parts) tamed and brought to heel. 

To put a cherry on top this rescission of the First Amendment, our Senators want to make the Attorney General of the United States the person who gets to decide which press is “legitimate” and worthy of First Amendment protections. 

Now, let’s think for a moment. Who appoints the Attorney General of the United States? 

The President of the United States. 

And who confirms this appointment?

The Senate of the United States.

Mr Fox, here’s your gun. You’re now in charge of the henhouse. 

From Breitbart:

An amendment is moving through the Senate Judiciary Committee that would essentially allow the government to determine who is a journalist for purposes of legal protection of sources. For purposes of protecting a source, a “journalist” under law would be anyone who: 

  • Works or worked for “an entity or service that disseminates news or information by means of newspaper; nonfiction book; wire service; news agency; news website, mobile application or other news or information service…news program; magazine or other periodical…or through television or radio broadcast…” These people would have to have the “primary intent to investigate events and procure material in order to disseminate to the public news or information.” Opinion journalists might not be covered.
  • Bloggers and citizen journalists – citizens who commit acts of journalists without working for such an outlet – would not be covered, unless it was determined that “at the inception of the process of gathering the news or information sought, had the primary intent to investigate issues or events and procure material in order to disseminate to the public news or information.” In other words, the government – the Department of Justice – would now determine whether primary intent was news distribution or political concerns.
  • Those explicitly excluded from protection include those “whose principal function, as demonstrated by the totality of such person or entity’s work, is to publish primary source documents that have been disclosed to such person or entity without authorization.” Glenn Greenwald, please contact your lawyer.

 

 

Edward Snowden, Michael Hastings’ Too-Convenient Death and British Tyranny — What is Happening Here?

It began with a young man who decided that the American people had the right to know that their government had them under surveillance.

Not, mind you, that the government had possible criminals under court-ordered surveillance by virtue of having produced evidence of probable cause. Our government has been sweeping all of our emails and cell phone convos into a big database and sifting through it looking for crimes, potential crimes, or anything it deems “suspicious.”

In the brave new world of Fourth-Amendment?-What-Fourth-Amendment?-Patriot-Act-land, we’re all potential criminals and we’re all under government surveillance.

The amount of data that our government has swept into its intelligence gathering maw has become so vast (remember these are electronic 1 and 0s, not piles of space-consuming paper) that the NSA is building a gi-normous file cabinet in the Utah desert to warehouse it all.

The minute that this young man stepped up and made this information available to the general public, the government smear machine and its trusty operatives in the press (perhaps I should say, it’s trusty operative, the press) swung into action, claiming and proclaiming that this young man, Edward Snowden is his name, was the worst American traitor since Benedict Arnold.

There were, of course, outliers in the press who didn’t buy it. MichaelHastings was one of this hardy band of actual journalists who didn’t write his stories straight from White House press releases.

Shortly after giving this interview:

YouTube Preview Image

 

Michael Hastings died in this car crash:

 

Michael Hastings Photo Crash Dead e1371661642849

The public was interested in Mr Hastings’ too convenient death until the same press that pushes the government line on us distracted the public with a trial about a shooting in Florida. This trial so transfixed the public that it completely forgot that Uncle Sam was watching its every move.

Unfortunately for the government, Mr Snowden decided to run rather than take his chances in a kangaroo court.

The president of the United States brought out all his big bully artillery and fired it off at every nation that might give Mr Snowden sanctuary. He huffed and he puffed and one by one the various nations put up the No Vacancy sign in front of Mr Snowden.

Russia finally took the wandering whistle-blower in, and President Obama promptly cancelled a scheduled G4 Summit talk with President Putin. I don’t know if President Putin cried himself to sleep that night or not. But I do know that the world is balanced on a razor’s edge. It might be nice if these two guys talked things over, even if President Putin is sheltering that dreadnought Snowden.

But then, that would presume that somebody involved in the government end of this mess actually cared about this country. It seems safe to say that they only care about covering their own backsides.

Meanwhile, our ally, the United Kingdom, decided to get into the act. Rather than huff and puff, they picked up their guns and clubs and went a-huntin’ and a-smashin’ in the offices of the British publication, The Guardian.

The Guardian had actually had the temerity to behave like a — I know this is hard to believe — member of the free press, and report Mr Snowden’s revelations about the work our governments were doing to put all of us on both sides of the Atlantic in the surveillance crosshairs.

The Brits, who are not troubled by niceties like First and Fourth Amendments, evidently took advantage of their government’s relative freedom to oppress its citizens and barged into The Guardian’s offices like Elliott Ness raiding a gin mill. They smashed computers and generally, as we say in these parts, tore up jack.

Of course, these tyrannical nitwits forgot (as tyrannical nitwits often do) the very essence of what they were dealing with. Evidently, nobody told them about backups.

I doubt that The Guardian lost a lot of data in this raid. But the British people lost a tremendous amount of freedom.

The question on this side of the Atlantic, not to even try to put it nicely, is did members of our government use the computer in Michael Hastings car to murder him because he was a danger to their careers?

It’s not even a question on the other side of the Atlantic. The answer is yes, the UK is in the bag for Obama and his spying on the populace of this country and probably theirs, as well. They don’t need a whistle blower to come forward and release evidence that their government has become a danger to the freedom of its citizens.

They went over to The Guardian’s offices and demonstrated that fact for all the world to see.

What is happening here?

Are we going to sit around and watch trashy televised trials and allow ourselves to be flim-flammed out of all our freedoms? Does anybody see how outrageous it is that the government has the entire American populace under surveillance?

I’ve run posts showing just how dishonest President Obama has been with the American people. Why, exactly, are they believing him now?

He’s got the whole world in his files.

That means you.

What happened in Britain isn’t a fluke. It’s a harbinger.

He Didn’t Make a Mistake. He Lied. And the Senate He Lied to Was In On It.

Boehner feinstein snowden cached

Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, says he “made a mistake” when he said “No sir. Not wittingly.”

He’s sent a letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein apologizing for his “mistake.”

The question that prompted this “mistake” was one in which Mr Clapper was asked if his agency collects “any type of data on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans.”

His answer, which he gave under oath, was “No sir. Not wittingly.”

Enter Edward Snowden, the man who the press and Congress have labeled public enemy number one, and who our government is using every bit of its international muscle to chase down and put on trial. No country will give Mr Snowden asylum. After all, who wants to mess with America?

What was Edward Snowden’s crime? He proved, rather convincingly, that the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, dead, flat lied to Congress when he said that his agency did not have “millions or hundreds of millions of Americans” under surveillance.

In truth, the lying Mr Clapper had just about the entire nation under the “information gathering” gun.

I don’t believe that Mr Clapper “made a mistake” when he said this. I don’t believe that he forgot that he was engaging in the most massive violation of the civil rights of the America people in the history of this nation. It is already a matter of fact that the President of the United States had informed our “duly elected officials” about what was going on. That means that Senator Feinstein knew Mr Clapper was lying. The President knew he was lying. The Speaker of the House knew he was lying.

When their silence let his lie stand, they were lying, too.

Here’s the Fourth Amendment. Read it and weep:

AMENDMENT IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

From Newsmax:

Clapper Apologizes for ‘Clearly Erroneous’ Statement to Congress

Image: Clapper Apologizes for 'Clearly Erroneous' Statement to Congress

 

Tuesday, 02 Jul 2013 10:57 PM

By Greg Richter

 
 
Under fire for telling Congress his agency did not gather intelligence on millions of Americans, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper apologized for what he called a “clearly erroneous” statement.Clapper apologized in a letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The letter was dated June 21, but was released to the public on Tuesday.

In it, Clapper says he has “thought long and hard” to recreate what was going on in his mind when he responded to a question from Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., asking whether Clapper’s agency collects “any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans.”

“No sir,” Clapper answered at the March 12 hearing. “Not wittingly.”

That was proved to be false when former NSA contract employee Edward Snowden leaked classified information on the PRISM program, which collects electronic communications, including email. Another leak showed that the NSA collects metadata from phone calls showing times and duration of calls as well as the other number involved in the call.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/clapper-congress-statement/2013/07/02/id/513137?promo_code=EB8D-1&utm_source=National_Review&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1#ixzz2XzXrrVk3 Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

DNA and the Fourth Amendment

Double helix Is DNA protected from illegal search and seizure by the Fourth Amendment?

If you are arrested for, say, drunk driving, do the police have the right to take a swab of your DNA and put it into police databanks?

The Supreme Court says “yes,” and that answer has set off a predictable firestorm on both sides of the civil liberties aisle.

We’ve been debating this issue most acrimoniously for several years in the Oklahoma House of Representatives. Proponents of taking DNA from people who have been arrested compare it to taking a fingerprint. Since fingerprints are routinely taken at the time of every arrest and put into databanks, why not DNA? Opponents express concerns about forced self-incrimination and illegal search and seizure.

There is no right answer to either set of arguments. Both positions have merit. Both concerns are valid.

This is the sort of disagreement that good people get into when they try to make laws. For several years running, the opponents of this legislation have carried the day. Oklahoma finally passed a weakened version of the original legislation that allowed law enforcement to take DNA samples from convicted felons.

I understand the problem with putting people’s DNA into police databanks. If it is abused, it can be tantamount to fishing expeditions where police round up “all the usual suspects” in hope that something pops us. On the other hand, I also understand that DNA is more accurate than fingerprints. I doubt that it’s foolproof. Nothing is. But if it is processed and interpreted by people who are both honest and who know what they are doing, it is more reliable than any other kind of evidence we have today.

Justice demonstrators

Crime Stoppers with photos of crime victims

DNA is particularly useful in solving violent crimes against persons such as rape and murder. It can pinpoint a rapist. It can turn around and free an innocent person who has been wrongly accused. DNA has been used to free a number of men who have been convicted of rapes they didn’t commit, as well as a several men (Everyone I know about who has been freed this way is a man.) who were convicted of murder.

Chemist t640

Joyce Gilchrist, Oklahoma City Police Department forensic chemist.

I voted for this legislation for these reasons, albeit with some trepidation. Police state fears and mis-use of evidence are not paranoia. They are a reality in much of the world and throughout history. For instance, we had a scandal here in Oklahoma in which Joyce Gilchrist, Oklahoma City Police Department forensic chemist, was convicted of falsifying evidence.

It’s difficult to balance the needs of criminal justice to gather the evidence they need to successfully prosecute criminals with the right of the populace to not be afraid of their government. Inserting DNA into this will complicate the situation and require a major re-thinking of what protections are needed.

Dna freed

Chris Rodgers, (center) wrongly convicted of murder. Freed by DNA evidence. 

When the Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement may take DNA swabs from people who have been arrested, it made this job of thinking and re-thinking both imminent and necessary. I assume that when a Supreme Court Justice votes on a ruling, he or she does it with the same awareness that I have when I vote on legislation. I know that no matter how much I try to weigh the pros and cons, I may make the wrong decision. I have made wrong decisions. No matter how hard I try to do my best, I will make wrong decisions again.

Such is the human condition.

Whether or not the Supreme Court was wrong with this ruling depends on how it’s used by law enforcement. Whether it opens the door to abuses, or it ushers in an era of much more accurate prosecutions depends on the integrity of the men and women who use it. Given that we are fallen people living in a fallen world, abuses are inevitable. That is why we need strong safeguards.

Imposing those safeguards is first of all in the hands of state legislators like me. This discussion leads directly to the reason why I pray the Rosary every day. My constant prayer is that God will protect me — and everyone else — from my own stupidity.

I expect I will vote on issues that arise concerning the enforcement of this recent Supreme Court ruling. Legislators all over the country will be doing the same thing. Congress will probably get into the act, as well.

The goal in all this is public safety. Public safety has, as it always does, two components. The first is safety from the bad guys out there who hurt people. The second is safety from the government itself.

 

ACLU Says Gun Control Legislation Infringes on Civil Liberties

This is a man bites dog story. Chris Calabrese, a lobbyist for the ACLU, has said that the gun control bill pending in the United States Senate may infringe on privacy rights and civil liberties.

That’s the problem when you create a sociopath-producing society. You end up having to hermetically seal the whole population to try to keep these monstrous few from going into movie theaters and schools and killing people. Instead of punishing the guilty, you end up using police state tactics on everyone.

It doesn’t surprise me that the proposed gun control legislation raises questions about privacy rights and civil liberties. Anyone who’s ever thought about it for longer than five minutes knows there is no way to have effective gun control without doing exactly that. While I realize that other countries have gun control, I would wager that their citizens do not have the Constitutional guarantees of individual freedoms, including the freedom to bear arms, that Americans do.

What I find surprising is that the ACLU is willing to say it. After the HHS Mandate, I’ve pretty much come to the conclusion that the ACLU is in the bag for politics, rather than defense of the Bill of Rights.

While this interview is a long way from an official ACLU position, it still surprises.

From Daily Caller:

As Senate Democrats struggle to build support for new gun control legislation, the American Civil Liberties Union now says it’s among those who have “serious concerns” about the bill.

Those concerns have the capacity to prove a major setback to Sen. Harry Reid’s current gun bill, which includes language from earlier bills introduced by Sens. Chuck Schumer and Barbara Boxer.

In an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller, a top lobbyist for the ACLU announced that the group thinks Reid’s current gun bill could threaten both privacy rights and civil liberties.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/04/exclusive-aclu-says-reids-gun-legislation-could-threaten-privacy-rights-civil-liberties/#ixzz2PWQfooQ5


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X