search warrant
Latest
US court let police search GEDmatch's entire DNA database despite protections
Michael Fields, a detective from the Orlando Police Department, has revealed at a police convention that he secured a warrant to search the full GEDmatch database with over a million users. Legal experts told The New York Times that this appears to be the first time a judge has approved this kind of warrant. New York University law professor Erin Murphy even told the publication that the warrant is a "huge game-changer," seeing as GEDmatch restricted cops' access to its database last year. "It's a signal that no genetic information can be safe," the professor said.
FBI deactivates about 3,000 GPS tracking devices, loses sight of your car
Following a January ruling by the US Supreme Court, the FBI has deactivated some 3,000 GPS units that were potentially infringing on the Fourth Amendment. The decision seems to be making waves in the U.S. Justice Department. Andrew Weissmann, FBI General Counsel, says some of the devices have been difficult to retrieve, as the vehicles they were once tracking now move undetected. The FBI has sought temporary permission to reactivate some of the devices to locate and retrieve the hardware. Weissmann says the FBI is also developing new guidelines regarding the legality of its agent's actions -- from the application and use of tracking devices, to the extent a suspect's garbage can be searched before the agent is committing trespass. In short, the FBI is working really hard not to violate your legal right to privacy. If you happen to find something weird under you car, give 'em a call. They'd probably like it back.
Supreme Court says police must get search warrant to use GPS tracking devices
The US Supreme Court ruled today that police must first obtain a search warrant before using GPS devices to track a suspect's vehicle, agreeing with an earlier appeals court ruling but rejecting the Obama administration's position on the case. In delivering the decision, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the court holds "that the government's installation of a GPS device on a target's vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle's movements, constitutes a 'search,'" and therefore violated the individual's Fourth Amendment rights. The case itself concerned a Washington DC nightclub owner and suspected drug dealer, Antoine Jones, who had his car's movements monitored for a month and was eventually sentenced to life in prison, only to see that conviction overturned by the aforementioned appeals court on the grounds that the police did not have a search warrant when they placed the GPS tracking device on his vehicle.[Image courtesy Wired]
Texas judge says warrantless cellphone tracking violates Fourth Amendment, saga continues
Rev up the bureaucratic turbines, because a judge in Texas has determined that warrantless cellphone tracking is indeed unconstitutional. In a brief decision issued earlier this month, US District Judge Lynn N. Hughes of the Southern District of Texas argued that seizing cellphone records without a search warrant constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment. "The records would show the date, time, called number, and location of the telephone when the call was made," Judge Hughes wrote in the ruling, linked below. "These data are constitutionally protected from this intrusion." The decision comes in response to an earlier ruling issued last year by Magistrate Judge Stephen Smith, also of the Southern District of Texas. In that case, Judge Smith argued against unwarranted wiretapping on similarly constitutional grounds, pointing out that with today's tracking technology, every aspect of a suspect's life could be "imperceptibly captured, compiled, and retrieved from a digital dossier somewhere in a computer cloud." The federal government appealed Judge Smith's ruling on the grounds that the Fourth Amendment would not apply to cellphone tracking, because "a customer has no privacy interest in business records held by a cell phone provider, as they are not the customer's private papers." Judge Hughes' decision, however, effectively overrules this appeal. "When the government requests records from cellular services, data disclosing the location of the telephone at the time of particular calls may be acquired only by a warrant issued on probable cause," Judge Hughes wrote. "The standard under [today's law] is below that required by the Constitution." The law in question, of course, is the Stored Communications Act -- a law bundled under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, which allows investigators to obtain electronic records without a warrant. This month's decision implicitly calls for this law to be reconsidered or revised, though it's certainly not the only ruling to challenge it, and it likely won't be the last, either.
Tennessee law bans 'distressing images,' opens your Facebook inbox
Congratulations Tennessee! Governor Bill Haslam has put your state in the national spotlight and, for once, it has nothing to do with Bonnaroo or how bad the Titans are. The republican executive of the state signed a ban on "distressing images" into law last week that we're sure constitutional lawyers are going to have a field day with. Anyone who sends or posts an image online (and yes, that includes TwitPics) that they "reasonably should know" would "cause emotional distress" could face several months in jail and thousands of dollars in fines. The best part? Anyone who stumbles across the image is a viable "victim" under the law and the government doesn't even have to prove any harmful intent. So, Tennessee residents who aren't cautious enough using Google image search could get a few people in trouble. Another, and perhaps more perturbing, part of the same bill also seeks to circumvent restrictions on obtaining private messages and information from social networking sites without a search warrant. We give it about a month before this gets struck down on obvious grounds that it's unconstitutional.
Gizmodo editor's house searched by police last Friday
Gizmodo editor Jason Chen came home last Friday to find police going through his house in California, according to a just-posted report on the blog that purchased Apple's prototype iPhone, originally lost in a bar a few weeks ago. We posted an analysis over the weekend about Gizmodo's possible liability after a report that police were starting up an investigation into the matter, but it looks like the case struck home quite literally for Chen. The editor had his house broken into (as per a search warrant) by police and multiple computers, hard drives, and an iPhone seized as evidence. Chen was told by officers that he was not under arrest or detainment, and that they were looking for material that may have been "used as a means of committing a felony." Gizmodo's legal representative, COO Gaby Darbyshire, filed paperwork with the officers that claims the search warrant was executed erroneously according to California penal code, which gives journalists fairly wide latitude for protection from seizure, especially regarding the identity of sources. Darbyshire also took issue with the search's time -- it wasn't approved as a "night search" according to the warrant, but took place at 9:45pm local time. As we said last week, it's unclear what liability Gizmodo might have for purchasing the lost iPhone, and uncertain what actions Apple might take in terms of civil or criminal prosecution. But it looks like the police investigation is underway, and if they find anything on the materials procured from Chen's house (as well as defend the complaint against the search's legality) that makes them think a felony took place, then it means this case isn't over. Update: Legal code (quoted in the comments below) says the search can take place between 7am and 10pm, which means the "night search" argument is already invalid. Darbyshire's other argument is questionable as well -- there's some legal dissension over whether the journalist protection extends to warrants like this or not. We likely won't find out whether this evidence stands until the sheriff's office decides to proceed with the case or not -- our legal analyst says that complaints like Darbyshire's should be filed with the judge, not the sheriff.
