Marxist Democrat Patrick Leahy reworking ‘privacy’ bill that gives government authority to read your e-mails with no warrant behind closed doors

November 24, 2012
democrat-logo

So not only is Patrick Leahy working on a bill that gives government the authority (without warrant)  the ability to read your private e-mails, but he’s doing so behind closed doors. This reminds me of the ObamaCARE bill when Democrats put things into the bill behind closed doors. Leahy is a typical Marxist Democrat, from a state Vermont that has also elected a socialist for a Senator.

Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley’s office leveled charges of working behind closed doors at Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy and his office following allegations and denials that he is aiming to allow law enforcement’s push for warrantless surveillance.


California Governor Veto Allows Warrantless Cellphone Searches

October 11, 2011

California Gov. Jerry Brown is vetoing legislation requiring police to obtain a court warrant to search the mobile phones of suspects at the time of any arrest. Because of that January ruling from the state’s high court, the California Legislature passed legislation to undo it — meaning Brown is taking the side of the Supreme Court’s seven justices instead of the state Legislature. The U.S. Supreme Court denied cert last week in Diaz v. California, a Fourth Amendment case from California’s Supreme Court which held that a cell phone can be searched incident to arrest. The Assembly approved the bill 70-0 and the state Senate, 32-4. The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), was flummoxed by Brown’s action. “It was a curious veto message suggesting that the courts could resolve this more effectively than the state Legislature,” he said in a telephone interview. Under California statehouse rules, neither Leno nor any other lawmaker may introduce the legislation for at least a year.

Northrop v. Trippett (6th Cir. 2001) 265 F.3d 372, 379: When conducting a search incident to arrest, police may search items within the “immediate control” of the person arrested.

(Wired) Cops Need Warrant for Cellphone Location Data, according to Judge Terrence McVerry of the Western Pennsylvania U.S. District Court on September 11, 2008. The Obama administration’s position that the government can force mobile carriers to hand over cellphone tower location information on their customers without a warrant is wrong, two legal scholars say. scholars Susan Freiwald, of the USF School of Law, and Peter Swire, of Ohio State University wrote: “Because CSLI acquisition is hidden, indiscriminate and intrusive, and because it reveals information over a period of time, it should be subject to the highest level of Fourth Amendment oversight (the same procedures used for wiretapping and video surveillance),” Their words, published by the American Constitution Society, came a month after the Justice Department made its claim in a little-noticed case that the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures did not apply. In April 20, 2009 Scholars Rejected Obama’s Stance on Warrantless Cell-Phone Records


Four Justices on the Fourth Amendment

March 21, 2011
Media_http1bpblogspot_ribie

An interesting statement respecting the denial of certiorari today in Huber v. N.J. Dep’t of Environmental Protection:

Statement of Justice Alito, with whom the Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas join, respecting the denial of certiorari.
Our cases recognize a limited exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement for searches of businesses in “closely regulated industries.” See, e.g., New York v. Burger, 482 U. S. 691, 699–703 (1987) (internal quotation marks omitted). The thinking is that, other things being equal, the “expectation of privacy in commercial premises” is significantly less than the “expectation in an individual’s home.” Id., at 700. And where a business operates in an industry with a “long tradition of close government supervision” — liquor dealers and pawnbrokers are classic examples — the expectation of privacy becomes “particularly attenuated.” Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted).
In this case, a New Jersey appellate court applied this doctrine to uphold a warrantless search by a state environmental official of Robert and Michelle Huber’s backyard. No. A–5874–07T3, 2010 WL 173533, *9–*10 (Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div., Jan. 20, 2010) (per curiam). The Hubers’ residential property contains wetlands protected by a New Jersey environmental statute. See N. J. Stat. Ann. §13:9B–1 et seq. (West 2003 and Supp. 2010). According to the court below, the presence of these wetlands brought the Hubers’ yard “directly under the regulatory arm” of the State “just as much” as if the yard had been involved in a “regulated industry.” 2010 WL 173533, *10. This Court has not suggested that a State, by imposing heavy regulations on the use of privately owned residential property, may escape the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. But because this case comes to us on review of a decision by a state intermediate appellate court, I agree that today’s denial of certiorari is appropriate. See this Court’s Rule 10. It does bear mentioning, however, that “denial of certiorari does not constitute an expression of any opinion on the merits.” Boumediene v. Bush, 549 U. S. 1328, 1329 (2007) (Stevens and KENNEDY, JJ., statement respecting denial of certiorari).

The reason the four Justices did not vote to grant certiorari (it only takes four votes to grant) is likely that, as Rule 10 suggests, the Justices rarely grant simply because of an erroneous decision of a state intermediate court of appeals; they generally wait until there is a disagreement among federal circuit courts of appeals or state supreme courts. But they are trying to signal to lawyers that this is an issue worth litigating.


Can the Police Now Use Thermal Imaging Devices Without a Warrant?

January 7, 2010

as these devices slowly migrate into the public’s hands, you can be certain that these tools will be used by citizens to focus on ways to get actual evidence to request a warrant from the police, but the courts for now have banned the use of these tools to qualify for a search independently.

In Kyllo, the police used an infrared thermal imaging device called an “Agema Thermovision 210″ to scan a suspect’s home from the city street. The scan tool a few minutes, and it revealed that the roof over Kyllo’s garage was unusually hot — a sign, the government though, that the suspect was growing marijuana under heat lamps in the garage attic. The Supreme Court announced the following rule: “when . . . the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a “search” and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.” Because infrared temperature sensing was not in “general public use,” the thermal imaging was a “search” that required a warrant.


Can the Police Now Use Thermal Imaging Devices Without a Warrant?

January 7, 2010

As these devices slowly migrate into the public’s hands, you can be certain that these tools will be used by citizens to focus on ways to get actual evidence to request a warrant from the police, but the courts for now have banned the use of these tools to qualify for a search independently.

In Kyllo, the police used an infrared thermal imaging device called an “Agema Thermovision 210″ to scan a suspect’s home from the city street. The scan tool a few minutes, and it revealed that the roof over Kyllo’s garage was unusually hot — a sign, the government though, that the suspect was growing marijuana under heat lamps in the garage attic. The Supreme Court announced the following rule: “when . . . the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a “search” and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.” Because infrared temperature sensing was not in “general public use,” the thermal imaging was a “search” that required a warrant.