TSA: Too Stupid for America

From John Stossel's Take Blog on FoxBusiness.com:

Or maybe it stands for 'Thousands Standing Around.'

Under the guise of making us safer, government has greatly expanded its role in airport security.

But according a report released today, we're not very much safer. Since November 2001, there have been 25,000 security breaches in our nation's airports. And these are just the breaches that we know about. A few days ago, a man managed to fly from Boston to Newark with a stun gun.

Like most failed government programs, many people think that the solution is to throw more money at the problem, even though the first version of the TSA spent far more than the private screeners they replaced, and since then the TSA's budget has increased from $4.7 billion in 2002 to $7.8 billion in 2011.

'We were search raped by TSA officials': Wheelchair Couple tells of horrific airport ordeal

From the Mail Online:

A disabled couple were subjected to a humiliating 'search rape' by over-zealous airport security officials, it has been claimed.

Jason and Jennifer Steitler, from Florida, claim they forced up from their wheelchairs and groped under their clothes by TSA agents last week at Greater Rochester International Airport in New York.

The pat downs were so intrusive Mrs Steitler went as far as describing the experience as a 'search rape'.

Opposing view: Warrantless GPS tracking needed

From USA TODAY:

The Supreme Court has agreed to review whether the government's warrantless use of a Global Positioning System device to monitor the public movements of a suspect's motor vehicle for one month was an unreasonable search in violation of the suspect's Fourth Amendment rights.

The scope and reach of the meaning of a Fourth Amendment 'search' must adapt to keep pace with the march of improved technology. Warrantless tracking of a suspect's motor vehicle through a GPS device does not in any way compromise an individual's expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment. If there is no invasion of a reasonable expectation of privacy, there is no 'search' and therefore no violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Historically, although courts have been vigilant about the sanctity of the home, they have afforded significantly less protection to individuals traveling in public.

In fact, the Supreme Court has expressly held that an individual traveling on a public highway has no 'reasonable expectation of privacy in his movement.' Police monitoring of a suspect's vehicle by use of a GPS device is not a 'search' and therefore does not require probable cause.

SCOTUS Grants Review in Firearm Search Warrant Case

From AmmoLand.com:

The Fourth Amendment guarantees our right to not be subjected to search and seizure under a “general” search warrant (i.e., a warrant not based on probable cause and not particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized).

Firearms are generally lawful to possess, and usually may not be seized without probable cause that a specific firearm was used in a crime. On August 24, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Millender v. County of Los Angeles, et al. (07-55518), confirmed that a general search warrant requesting the seizure of “all handguns, rifles or shotguns of any caliber, or any firearms capable of firing ammunition…” was unconstitutional when the police who sought the warrant were aware they were actually searching for just one specific firearm.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) and the California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation (CRPAF) argued this point in an amicus (friend of the court) brief filed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of the Mrs. Millender. A copy of the brief, along with the opinion, other case related briefs, and memorandum analyzing the opinion is posted at http://michellawyers.com/millendervlosangeles.

Local Author's 'Take the Fourth' Takes on the Right to Privacy

From the Phoenixville Patch:

In today’s digital age, most of us are aware by now that every time we visit the Internet we are sharing information. However, to what extent and how much may shock you.

Local author Jeffrey Walton, of Schuylkill Township, takes this invasion of privacy a step further in his new book, Take the Fourth.

“I learned over the years how much information is really out there for the taking,” said Walton, who when not writing works as a development manager for one the top technology providers for the financial industry. “The amount of mundane information that can turn into statistics is pretty amazing.'

Walton explores this topic in his first novel, named in reference to the Fourth Amendment, which entitles us to our basic right to privacy. Walton takes his lead character on a fictional trip of “what if”—what if information sharing got so out of control that every move we make was trackable and accounted for by those in charge?

US cops addicted to Facebook data - Users never know

From TechEye:

US coppers are getting warrants for detailed access to users' Facebook accounts without their knowledge.

According to Reuters, since 2008, federal judges have authorised at least two dozen warrants to search individuals' Facebook accounts to the FBI, DEA and ICE. The investigations range from arson to rape to terrorism.

Facebook gives the cops a detailed package of profile and photo information that is not even available to users themselves.

It looks like the cops are getting so addicted to the amount of useful data that they can get from these profiles that they are hitting the courts for more warrants. Federal agencies were granted at least 11 warrants to search Facebook since the beginning of 2011, double the number for all of 2010.

Can Police Seize Cells?

From Fredericksburg.com:

If you are arrested, do the police have the right to look through your cellphone?

After all, they can already look through your purse, your wallet, your pockets-- or your car, if that's where you are when you're arrested.

Increasingly they're also looking through your phone, with the idea that your phone can hold evidence of a crime.

But whether they can legally do so--or should be able to legally do so--without a warrant is still a question up for debate.

DOJ: We can force you to decrypt that laptop

From CNET News (h/t @Hfuhs via @DaveMarcus):

The Colorado prosecution of a woman accused of a mortgage scam will test whether the government can punish you for refusing to disclose your encryption passphrase.

The Obama administration has asked a federal judge to order the defendant, Ramona Fricosu, to decrypt an encrypted laptop that police found in her bedroom during a raid of her home.

Because Fricosu has opposed the proposal, this could turn into a precedent-setting case. No U.S. appeals court appears to have ruled on whether such an order would be legal or not under the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment, which broadly protects Americans' right to remain silent.

Ind. first to require drug tests for job training

From abc7chicago.com:

Indiana's decision to require drug tests for unemployed people participating in state-funded job training programs is part of a growing trend among states trying to corral dwindling resources.

Indiana's new policy gives people applying for job training one business day to undergo a urinalysis test at a site approved by the state. Tests will be conducted for marijuana, cocaine, opiates, the hallucinogen PCP and amphetamine and methamphetamine.

Workforce Development Commissioner Mark Everson says it doesn't make sense to spend state money training someone for a job when they won't be able to pass a drug test.

Indiana University law professor Ken Dau-Schmidt believes the testing violates the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable searches.

The U.S. Labor Department says Indiana is the first state to require drug test for job trainees.

Review of the Court’s Fourth Amendment cases

From SCOTUSblog:

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in five Fourth Amendment cases in the recently completed Term. The Court dismissed one case as improvidently granted and didn’t reach the merits of the Fourth Amendment issue in a second case. In the three cases that did reach the merits, however, the government’s side readily won: 8-0, 8-1, and 7-2. Justice Alito wrote two of the three majority opinions, and Justice Scalia wrote the third.

Help restore the 4th amendment

From Free Keene.com:

Randolph Holhut in the Windham County Commons reports that U.S. Representative Peter Welch, of Vermont, is cosponsoring a bill which would require law enforcement to obtain a warrant before using a person’s GPS information.

Because it’s easier than trailing someone in person and court approval is unnecessary, the FBI now commonly attaches GPS trackers to people’s cars. According to Wired, “The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruled last year that using a GPS tracker was no different than physically trailing a suspect in public, and that such surveillance was not protected by the Fourth Amendment, even if agents placed the device on a suspect’s car while it was parked in his driveway.” (A dissenting judge argued that it was “straight out of George Orwell’s novel 1984″.) The devices have been found on the cars of environmental activists and college students.

Judge rules use of GPS to track a cheating spouse is not an invasion of privacy

From NJ.com:

Beware, all you cheating husbands and wives.

The use of a GPS device to track your whereabouts is not an invasion of privacy in New Jersey, a state appellate court panel ruled today.

Based on the battle of a divorcing Gloucester County couple, the decision helps clarify the rules governing a technology increasingly employed by suspicious spouses — many of whom hire private investigators.

“For the appellate division to say that it’s not an invasion of privacy is a wonderful thing for the private investigation business,” said Lisa Reed, owner of LSR Investigations in Flemington. “It’s been something we’ve been haggling over for some period of time.”