4th Amendment

Tom Goldstein

I’m really sorry about that.

Tom Goldstein, publisher of SCOTUSblog, commenting on the Supreme Court decision rendered in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington. Goldstein, who argued on behalf of the petitioner in that case, made this remark while speaking as a guest on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

(In the wake of President Obama’s comments on the Court’s “judicial activism,” what did Goldstein have to say about the Nine’s stance on Marbury v. Madison? Find out, after the jump.)

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Quote of the Day: Strip Searches Are Funny on Cable TV”

Non-Sequiturs: 02.13.12

* Looks like Obama has reached a compromise position on birth control. It’s not right, but it’s okay. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Apple gets so emotional baby, every time it thinks of Samsung. [eWeek]

* Greece begrudgingly signed austerity legislation while lamenting, “Didn’t we almost have it all.” [What About Clients]

* The Bearcat would be a patrol car that had the stuff that you want, and the thing that you need. It would have more than enough to make the 4th Amendment drop to its knees. It’d be the Queen of the night, oh yeah. [Simple Justice]

* It’s almost time for the National Animal Law Competitions. How will I know if this is really happening? I say a prayer that one of these guys gets paid. [Animal Legal Defense Fund]

* Now that Super PACs are back on the table, a cabinet secretary could be your baby tonight, for a million dollars or so. [Election Law Blog]

* For some reason, the Columbia Law School twitter feed retweeted this article about the five leadership mistakes of the Emperor in Star Wars. I don’t know why? Are they saying that Dean David Schizer is like Emperor Palpatine? I don’t get it, I have nothing. [Forbes]

* R.I.P. Whitney Houston, lady with a voice that could put soul into a country song…

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Non-Sequiturs: 02.13.12″

The Supreme Court just handed down a unanimous opinion ruling in one of the most closely watched cases of the year. All the justices agreed on the result, but diverged significantly in reasoning.

This morning, the court issued its decision in United States v. Jones. Police in Washington, D.C. placed a GPS tracking device on the car of Antoine Jones, a nightclub owner, without obtaining a warrant. The GPS device helped law enforcement link Jones to a house used to store drugs and money. He was eventually convicted and sentenced to life in prison. An appeals court later overturned his conviction.

The central issue in Jones was whether attaching a GPS device to a car (i.e., allowing law enforcement 24/7 access to a person’s movements), without obtaining a warrant first, violated the Fourth Amendment.

The case has been heralded as one of the most important privacy cases in recent memory. Wired’s Threat Level blog said Jones “is arguably the biggest Fourth Amendment case in the computer age.” Editor emerita Kashmir Hill attended oral arguments for the case back in November.

What did the justices say? The ruling might surprise you…

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Breaking: SCOTUS Rules in Highly Anticipated GPS Tracking Case”

WASHINGTON - OCTOBER 08:  U.S. Supreme Court m...

“If you win this case, there is nothing to prevent the police or government from monitoring 24 hours a day the public movement of every citizen of the United States,” said Justice Breyer.

The Supreme Court justices were decked out in their usual black robes today for U.S. vs Jones [pdf], a case involving the question of whether police need a warrant to attach a GPS tracker to someone’s car. But given their paranoia about possible technology-enabled government intrusions on privacy, it might not have been surprising if they had also been wearing tin foil hats.

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “SCOTUS Not Psyched About Idea Of Government Secretly Putting GPS Trackers On Their Cars”

The best kind of welfare?

* Cloudy with a chance of dismissal for Steve Sunshine, Sprint’s Skaddenite. During oral argument, a judge reminded him that antitrust law didn’t exist to protect competitors. [Wall Street Journal]

* Oh, the things you’ll argue to get around a motion to dismiss: Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s accuser now contends that diplomatic immunity isn’t a pass for free blow jobs. [Bloomberg]

* Israel trades prisoners like Pokémon cards. Pending approval from the country’s security cabinet, Emory Law student Ilan Grapel will be swapped for 25 Egyptian prisoners. [Los Angeles Times]

* Premeditation? Sam Friedlander, the solo practitioner who massacred his family, bought a shotgun after getting the short end of the stick in a custody arrangement. [Journal News]

* Do drug tests constitute unreasonable searches and seizures? Maybe not, but thanks to a temporary injunction, welfare recipients in Florida will live to toke another day. [Washington Post]

We’ve been talking a lot recently about the secretly authorized stuff our government does to us — like killing us, or molesting us at airports.

Here’s another one for the list: digging through our emails or Twitter feeds or cell phone data, without probable cause, our permission, or our knowledge. This isn’t necessarily shocking in and of itself; back in April, Kashmir Hill wrote about how often the government requests information about private individuals from tech companies.

What’s shocking is the ease with which the government gets that information and the secrecy with which it does so. Somehow it’s all based on a law that is older than the Internet. The policy recently came to light when authorities ordered a small Internet provider, as well as Twitter and Google, to turn over information about Jacob Appelbaum, an American who volunteers with WikiLeaks.

How does the U.S. government circumvent basic probable cause and search warrant requirements when it wants electronic information? Let’s see….

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “If the Government Wants Your Email, It Gets Your Email”

* In November, the Supreme Court will decide whether our Fourth Amendment rights come subject to advances in technology. I, for one, welcome our new Orwellian overlords. [New York Times]

* What do you get when two wireless carriers with craptastic coverage and service that goes down more than a porn star have plans to merge? Who knows, but AT&T says it’s a good thing. [Bloomberg]

* Class actions are pretty pricey, so it would be great if Groupon offered its employees a special on overtime pay. That daily deal would reach the required minimum. [Crain's Chicago Business]

* Would that Stephen McDaniel had once posted online about where he would hide a “hypothetical” body. The search for the remains of Lauren Giddings continues this week. [Macon Telegraph]

* Stephen Zack, immediate past president of the ABA, is donating $800K to his alma mater to promote diversity. Promoting employment is apparently still on the back burner. [Miami Herald]

* Do fat people have rights under the ADA? White Castle, if your customers are too large to fit into your booths, the solution isn’t to send them coupons for more fast food. [New York Post]

My objections to the TSA and the invasive search techniques they employ have been well documented in these pages. I believe their tactics are violative of our rights and would be deemed unconstitutional in any America where courts placed justice ahead of fear. I believe a government that authorizes these searches has lost its legitimacy to rule. I believe citizens who support these procedures do not deserve the liberty they so eagerly toss aside.

And I believed all of that before I was actually molested by the TSA just yesterday.

Having now been through that awful experience, and so close to the ten-year anniversary of 9/11, I can only conclude that not only did the terrorists win, but they keep winning. Right now, the terrorists are winning so hard that they’ve gotten us to do their work for them. In my opinion, the TSA is nothing more than a domestic terror organization that operates above the law.

Just two minutes alone with these people has made me realize that their power now far exceeds the normal constraints of law and order. It might well take active civil disobedience to stop them.

Of course, this is all just my opinion. That’s a disclaimer I feel I need to make very clearly, since the TSA apparently believes that I should be wary of even criticizing it, for fear of being slapped with a lawsuit….

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Two Minutes of Terrorist Triumph: Alone With the TSA”

Morning Docket: 08.31.11

* You don’t have the right to get half naked in an airport to protest the TSA’s policies. Aaron Tobey’s lawsuit has been stripped of its Fourth Amendment claims following a dismissal. [Washington Post]

* Paul Ceglia has to give Facebook every email he’s exchanged since 2003. If Ceglia’s like most men, lawyers at Gibson Dunn will get an interesting peek at his private life. [Wall Street Journal]

* An HIV/AIDS group has been charged with improperly spending federal funds. They were supposed to open a job training center. They allegedly opened a strip club. Problem? [Washington Examiner]

* Pit bulls are cute until they bite your face off (but they do get a bad rap because of bad owners). This ADA lawsuit may help overturn residential dog breed restrictions in Colorado. [ABA Journal]

* In a case of a playboy getting hustled, a man is suing over a $28,109.60 bar tab charged on his credit card at the Hustler Club. Talk about going tit for tat. [New York Post]

The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments t...

Time to scratch off that Fourth one?

The Honorable Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and one of his law clerks have penned a eulogy for the Fourth Amendment. It’s been murdered, Judge Kozinski and Stephanie Grace write in an editorial for The Daily, and you all are the guilty culprits.

You’ve put a knife in it, by letting supermarkets track your shopping in exchange for loyalty discounts, letting Amazon and eBay store your credit card info, and letting Google track the websites you visit and take photos of your homes with satellites.

The problem, at least constitutionally speaking, is that the Fourth Amendment protects only what we reasonably expect to keep private. One facet of this rule, known as the third party doctrine, is that we don’t have reasonable expectations of privacy in things we’ve already revealed to other people or the public…

With so little left private, the Fourth Amendment is all but obsolete. Where police officers once needed a warrant to search your bookshelf for “Atlas Shrugged,” they can now simply ask Amazon.com if you bought it. Where police needed probable cause before seizing your day planner, they can now piece together your whereabouts from your purchases, cellphone data and car’s GPS. Someday soon we’ll realize that we’ve lost everything we once cherished as private.

via Remember what the Fourth Amendment protects? No? Just as well. | United States |Axisoflogic.com.

The lamentation for the loss of privacy has special resonance coming from these two, because it’s by one of the top federal judges in the country and that Stephanie Grace.

Read on at Forbes.com….

Page 2 of 3123