Tag Archives: Fourth Amendment

Podcast #71: Civil liberties vs immigration enforcement

Dan King comes back to the Young Voices podcast to share the latest in the long story of government infringing on civil liberties. He wrote in the Observer about technology law enforcement used to fight terrorism that is now being applied to immigration enforcement.


Follow Dan on Twitter @Kinger_Editor and Stephen @StephenOfKent 

Find Young Voices on Facebook and Twitter and email Stephen about the show with thoughts, questions or ideas at [email protected]

Protect Data Privacy at the Border

Senators Rand Paul (R-KY) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) recently introduced a much-needed, bipartisan Senate bill to combat mobile device searches. Reps. Jared Polis (D-CO.) and Blake Farenthold (R-TX) also introduced this bill to the House. The “Protecting Data at the Border” Act is a vital step towards protecting the American people from one of the most egregious forms of government overreach.

The bipartisan, bicameral bill would shut down what Wyden calls a “legal Bermuda Triangle,” which allows the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to search people’s mobile devices at the United States border without a warrant. If passed, the bill would require law enforcement agencies to obtain a “warrant based on probable cause” before seizing the device of “a U.S. person.” It also prevents law enforcement from denying or delaying entry to the country if a person refuses to turn over PIN numbers, passwords, or social media account information.

Current device search policy applies to U.S. citizens and noncitizens alike and allows the federal government to search cell phones, tablets, and other mobile devices at border crossings without any suspicion of criminal wrongdoing. In 2009, after concerns were raised about the legality of the policy, the DHS conducted a civil liberties impact assessment, which came to the troubling conclusion that such searches are justified. The summary reads:

“We also conclude that imposing a requirement that officers have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a border search of an electronic device would be operationally harmful without concomitant civil rights/civil liberties benefits.”

In other words: Fourth Amendment need not apply.

It is abundantly clear that this policy treads all over civil liberties. As the American Civil Liberties Union points out, federal authorities are granted “broader” power near border areas. But those powers do not allow them blatantly to violate Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Continue reading at RealClearPolicy

Sotomayor and the Fourth Amendment

Recently, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor came to the defense of the Fourth Amendment in the Supreme Court case Utah v. Strieff. In her dissent, Sotomayor thundered, “The Court today holds that the discovery of a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer’s violation of your Fourth Amendment rights…This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants—even if you are doing nothing wrong.”

The case dealt with whether a warrant discovered after an illegal stop makes the stop legitimate. Additionally, if a warrant is found, anything discovered after the stop, like drugs, can be used against an individual in court.

The Fourth Amendment is supposed to protect citizens against unreasonable search and seizures from the government. Additionally, anything discovered after an illegal search is not admissible in court as evidence. The ruling is not only bad for the Fourth Amendment, but also for minority communities.

For example, data compiled by the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) found that, in 2015, New Yorkers were “stopped and frisked” by the police 22,939 times. Of those searched, 18,353 (80%) were totally innocent,12,223 (54%) were black, and 6,598 (29%) were Latino.

Sotomayor, a Latina-American born and raised in New York, offers a personal perspective on the effect of unreasonable searches on minority communities: “For generations, black and brown parents have given their children ‘the talk’— instructing them never to run down the street; always keep your hands where they can be seen; do not even think of talking back to a stranger—all out of fear of how an officer with a gun will react to them.”

Over criminalization disproportionately affects the colored community, and Sotomayor takes it head on. Ceding more of the Fourth Amendment to the police is not good for police or citizens of any color. It will make both police and citizens suspicious of each other, which will only further divide them.

The Spy in Your Pocket

Does the government need a search warrant to know where you’ve been? Not if your cell phone provider knows. If you don’t like how that sounds, there may be ways to change it.

Take the case of Quartavious Davis, a Florida man convicted of robbing at gunpoint a pizzeria, a gas station, a drugstore, an auto parts store, a beauty salon, a fast food restaurant, and a jewelry store. The prosecution offered multiple lines of evidence, but there was one in particular that Davis’s lawyers objected to: records the government obtained from Davis’s cell phone provider, MetroPCS.

The records, which MetroPCS kept in its normal course of business, showed “the telephone numbers for each of Davis’s calls and the number of the cell tower that connected each call.” From this information, police concluded that “calls to and from Davis’s cell phone were connected through cell tower locations that were near the robbery locations, and thus Davis necessarily was near the robberies too.”

Prosecutors got their hands on the MetroPCS cell tower records using a court-ordered subpoena. In criminal cases like Davis’s, courts may grant subpoenas on “specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe” that the records sought “are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.” Although this standard is higher than that for typical subpoenas, it’s lower than the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause standard.

Read the rest on FEE here.

Justice Department Proposal Mocks Fourth Amendment

The Justice Department is seeking an amendment proposal that will give the federal government express power to locate and hack into the computers of anyone suspected of criminal activity. However, many organizations, including Google and the American Civil Liberties Union, are concerned that the broad language of the proposal leaves potential for Fourth Amendment violations.

Federal Prosecutors claim that this revision to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure  has become necessary now that crime can be committed and concealed on the internet under a veil of anonymity and masked location. But in a memo responding to the concerns civil libertarians have raised, the DOJ makes clear that this amendment is seeking statutory legitimacy for practices the federal government is already engaging in practices that are arguably in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The proposal to amend Rule 41 of the federal rules of criminal procedure fails to guarantee the privacy of those who are not under investigation but who have had access to the same computer as the target of a remote warrant. The DOJ claims that this omission is a non-issue because the federal government already overlooks the reasonable right to privacy provided by the Constitution.

“When the government executes a Rule 41 warrant in the physical world, it is not obliged to provide notice to everyone with a potential privacy interest in the place searched,” the recent memo reads.

The DOJ offers its assurances that this rule change won’t violate the Fourth Amendment or increase the potential for privacy infringements by the federal government. Why? Because executing remote search warrants on property with an unknown location is an exercise already practiced by the federal government.

Read the rest at the Daily Caller…