4th Amendment

David Hardy writes about the unintended consequences of search and seizure to an innocent man.  Personally, I'd argue that a police search and seizure comes with an automatic bill to repair or replace anything damaged or destroyed in the search, assuming the person targeted is later found innocent or not charged.  That should be automatic, rather than requiring the target to initiate a lawsuit to recover damages.  Police are far too eager to destroy things when they are "searching", and the search itself becomes a form of punishment.  To me, that's unreasonable, never mind the warrant.

Kim suggests that no-knock warrants are a bad thing, and that when the police screw up and raid the wrong house, the occupants of that house should not be penalized for shooting back regardless of anything else the police might do. 

1. I will grant, very reluctantly, the fact that occasionally the police will require extraordinary powers in order to catch serious criminals.
2. However, on the basis that extreme measures also require extreme caution, I will also stipulate that if a LEO (or more than one LEO) gets shot during a no-knock raid which has been made at the wrong address, that the homeowner MAY NOT BE CHARGED with any felony.

He's almost right.  I have two quibbles. 

First, the minor one -- why restrict it to felonies?  If an LEO gets shot, or the like, while executing a no-knock warrant on the wrong house, the occupants should get off scott-free for anything found in the search or anything they do to defend themselves.  The LEO is there illegally, and that's that. 

Second, the whole concept of no-knock warrants is repugnant to a free society.  There are very narrow cases which arguably require such a warrant; the obvious ones are hostage situations or terrorists with the remote control to a bomb in their hideout.   Outside of rare cases like those, nothing is gained by a no-knock warrant.  They should not even be issued.

Given that, I see no need to restrict the self-defense principle above to cases where there was a mistake on the warrant; as far as I am concerned it should be applied to ANY and ALL no-knock warrants.

If the police make the decision to go in without knocking, they are starting a fight, and no one should be blamed for the actions they take in self-defense.  Whatever the original reason for searching was on the warrant can be fought over in court, but any actions taken in response to the raid come with a get-out-of-jail-free card. 

You may be thinking that this leaves no incentive for criminals to surrender rather than shooting back.  I disagree.  The incentive is simple.  If they shoot back, the police will quite likely kill them on the spot.  If they do not shoot back, they will quite likely live to face trial.  That's a big incentive.

Seems like simple common sense to me.  If you break into someone's house with your gun out, deliberately denying them the opportunity to consider their actions rationally and evaluate who you are and what you want, they are going to perceive a life-threatening emergency and shoot at you.  Being a criminal doesn't change that, especially these days, when tiny little innocuous things are often felonies.

Virginia law enforcement authorities are using records from the state's Smart Tag electronic highway-toll-collection system in their investigations. Though the Virginia Department of Transportation has been subpoenaed for the electronic toll-system records, it also hands over the records of vehicle movements to police without requiring a court order, the department said. Law enforcement officials subpoenaed Smart Tag records in the investigation of the deadly anthrax mail attack in the Washington area in 2001, department officials said.

The term "unConstitutional search" keeps coming to mind here.

Colorado police can set up fake checkpoints in hopes of sniffing out illegal drugs, an appeals court ruled in a case where camouflage-clad officers spied on fans during a bluegrass festival in 2000.

Thursday's ruling, which reversed an earlier finding, was based on a federal appeals court decision last year in a similar case in Oklahoma.

Police at the Telluride festival had posted signs along the road saying, "Narcotics checkpoint, one mile ahead" and "Narcotics canine ahead." Officers wearing camouflage hid on a hill and watched for any people who turned around or appeared to toss drugs out of their windows after seeing the signs.

Police officers executing a search warrant do not violate constitutional rights by waiting only 15 to 20 seconds after knocking and announcing their presence before using force to enter a suspect's residence, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday.

The unanimous decision written by Justice David Souter held that officers who searched for cocaine in a suspect's apartment in Las Vegas did not violate the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures of evidence.

He said the officers, who forced their way in after only a brief pause were justified because of the "exigent circumstances" that the drugs could be disposed of if they waited any longer.

Y'know, I just don't see how the court can possibly reconcile the drug war with the Constitution at all. But put that aside. Here we have a ruling that the potential disposal of evidence for a non-violent, victimless crime of possession is sufficient to justify only a 15-20 second warning by police before breaking down someone's door.

15 to 20 seconds.

If you were in the shower -- as the individual in this case was -- how long would it take you to respond to a police knock on your door? How long before they break down your door, whether or not you've done anything wrong? Doesn't the citizen have the right to inspect and verify the validity of the warrant before permitting the search to take place?

Apparantly not according to this court. So are we to open our doors to any batch of criminals able to get their hands on official-looking uniforms and literate enough to print something that looks like a warrant -- from a distance?

A federal judge ordered authorities Thursday to return nine computers and hundreds of disks confiscated from a consultant thought to have images relevant to the trial of Oklahoma City bombing conspirator Terry Nichols. U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III said he was satisfied consultant John Culbertson would cooperate in the investigation and police should not have executed a search warrant to seize material they probably could have gotten with a subpoena. "The search appears to be excessively broad," he said. "This was a howitzer (doing) what a BB gun could have accomplished."

The Transportation Security Administration said Wednesday it will order airlines to turn over passengers' personal records in the next couple of months to test a computerized passenger screening program that could keep dangerous people off airlines.

U.S. airlines are refusing to voluntarily turn over passenger data to the government so it can test the system. They echo their customers' concerns about government snooping and the possibility that people will be wrongly labeled as terrorists.

"require"? REQUIRE? I have only one thing to say about this.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It's a groundbreaking court decision that legal experts say will affect everyone: Police officers in Louisiana no longer need a search or arrest warrant to conduct a brief search of your home or business. Leaders in law enforcement say it will keep officers safe, but others argue it's a privilege that could be abused.

This is a very scary ruling. The basic premise is that if an officer gains entry into a home legally (ie, through consent) they then have permission to search that home "for their own safety", and what they find is then admissable in court. In the case that produced the ruling, officers were looking for a resident of the house, without an arrest warrant, and obtained permission from another resident to look for the individual. Their search included the bedroom and closets of the person they were looking for (on the grounds that he could be hiding in one). The search uncovered several firearms; as the person they were looking for is a felon, he was charged as a felon in possession of firearms.

Now, a more appropriate way to deal with officer-safety concerns would be to allow "officer safety" searches only in cases where an arrest warrant was issued, and to explicitly prohibit any use of evidence from those searches. In other words, if the officer conducts a search for "safety" reasons he can't use anything he finds, automatically, no arguments; not in trial and not in a request for a search warrant. This will appropriately discourage the use of officer safety as an excuse for searching a residence.

I will also reiterate here that "Officer Friendly" is not your friend and should not be invited into your home, into your car, or really, anywhere you have any property rights to, no matter how friendly he seems. Any "casual chats" Officer Friendly wants you to have with him can be had outside your home with the door closed.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Tuesday that government agents can search and even dismantle a car's gas tank as part of drug and other smuggling interdiction at the nation's borders.

Border officers can randomly search gas tanks, despite the absence of specific indication that a particular car is suspect, the high court said. People crossing the border have less expectation of privacy than elsewhere, and searching the inner reaches of a car is not the same thing as a strip search or other intrusive search of the driver, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the court.

This one's debatable. How would you feel if your car was dismantled by customs agents intent on searching your gas tank? Would you trust them to put it back together? Would they even put it back together if nothing was found?

I believe that the Fourth Amendment in America has focused debate about law-enforcement searches on warrant issues, when those issues are in fact rarely a significant issue. Warrants are habitually sworn out and signed on the flimsiest of evidence (including evidence from "anonymous tips" that could well be the officers themselves). A "search" of someone's home or car by a government intent on finding drugs could easily do thousands of dollars in damage to the building or vehicle.

In a judicial version of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has blasted a huge hole in the Fourth Amendment. If the Supreme Court fails to repair it, the Bill of Rights will topple as surely as did the Twin Towers 2 1/2 years ago.

One of Central Florida's largest pest control companies has been recruited by police to help fight crime, according to Local 6 News.  "Our point is not to invade people's houses or make them feel like their privacy is being invaded. It's just to try to have an extra set of eyes and ears out there," Truley Nolen worker Ronnie Rachels said.  Technicians from Truly Nolen Pest Control of America are being trained by local law enforcement to spot anything unusual as they visit customer's homes.

There's nothing necessarily wrong about pest control employees being trained to call the police if they see a robbery or break-in in progress while driving between jobs, which is what this program is purportedly about, but the Fourth-Amendment implications of those employees potentially reporting on what they see inside someone's home can be fairly scary.  Of course, calling for a pest-control service is presumably a voluntary sort of thing, so it might slip by on a technicality... but having police training employees (who go into people's homes as part of their job) to report suspicious activity is ripe for abuse.

A coalition of community groups Thursday demanded that Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr., provide more accountability to his controversial gun crimes task force or disband it. Clarke's consent to search program has been under way for nearly seven weeks now. However, as a team of 16 sheriff's deputies patrol the streets asking drivers stopped for minor infractions for permission to search their vehicles, community activists say they doubt that deputies explain that vehicle searches are completely voluntary.

A family is suing Laramie County sheriff's deputies and Wyoming Highway Patrol troopers for entering their home in February 2001 without a warrant. In a complaint filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court by Steven L. Polston, he alleges that law enforcement officers entered his home without a warrant or permission because they believed he was a drug dealer. Former Laramie County Sheriff Roger Allsop is named in the suit, as is the director of the Wyoming Highway Patrol and officers within those agencies. Members of the Laramie County Commission also are named.

Three high school students and their parents filed suit Thursday against Union City school officials and police, alleging they illegally rounded up, questioned, photographed and searched students as part of an apparent gang sweep. About 60 mostly Hispanic and Asian students were detained by school officials and police at James Logan High School last year on Feb. 22, according to the suit filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California on behalf of the students. "They have to stop harassing these children. They cannot assume that everybody is gang affiliated," said Angela Munoz, whose son, Victor, was questioned that day. "Just because they're students doesn't mean they can go and take their rights away. If he can't sit and eat lunch with friends, what can the kids do?"

A third lawsuit resulting from a controversial raid at a Kmart last month was filed Tuesday, continuing what lawyers say will be dozens of such cases.

In their suit, Brandi Ratliff, 18, and William Ryan Grenwelge, 20, claim false imprisonment and blame the city of Houston, the police chief and other officers in charge of the scene. Their suit, filed in state district court, does not specify a monetary amount.

Legal experts differed yesterday on whether police exceeded their authority by arresting a large group of anti-capitalist protesters for the actions or theats made by a few.

Most of the complaints about Friday's arrests seemed to center on events in Pershing Park, at 15th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW. There, several hundred people, including protesters who had marched from elsewhere in downtown, participants in a "bicycle strike" and curious bystanders were gradually encircled and arrested.

"You've got to arrest people on the basis of their individual violations of law," said Herman Schwartz, a law professor at American University. "You can't just sort of surround a public park and say, 'Everyone in here, you're presumed to be prepared to shut down the city.' "

Seems pretty clear-cut to me.

The Maryland police decided to stop and handcuff everyone driving a white van after the latest sniper shooting. This is a clear violation of the fourth amendment. Sure, stop them, and search the van, if the van matches the description -- but putting the driver in handcuffs is out of line.

This link is to a photograph.

An allegedly powerful computer system is being built at the Pentagon reportedly to allow search of credit card transaction, banking, travel and other personal records. Prominant Washington insider Vice Admiral John Poindexter (National Security Advisor in the Reagan Administration) heads the Office of Information Awareness at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

A secretive appeals court ruled today that antiterrorism legislation approved last year gives the Justice Department broad authority to conduct wiretaps and other surveillance on terrorism suspects within the United States.

The order by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review represents a legal triumph for Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, who had pushed for the broader powers, and a clear setback for civil libertarians who said the new measures would jeopardize the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens.

The is the appeal's court decision related to a search warrant faxed to Yahoo! and executed outside the presence of law enforcement.

Invite friends over, babysit your grandchildren or allow relatives to spend the night in Belleville and you risk an armed police officer turning up at your door to search your home and give you a ticket.

Enforcement teams consisting of a housing inspector and a police officer do not obtain search warrants before showing up to check for occupancy code violations, a Belleville News-Democrat investigation found.

Most residents give their permission to come in, although reluctantly, and those who don't usually are charged. Sometimes they simply walk in.

Blatant 4th amendment violations here.

Nearly five years ago, a pair of elite units from the Orange County Sheriff's Office burst into a crowded sports bar with guns drawn and searched the bar's patrons and employees as a part of a crackdown on a Central Florida organized-crime ring.

There were a few problems with the raid.

Officers soon learned that no one in the bar had anything to do with their criminal investigation or even posed a threat to law enforcement. Furthermore, they found out their searches were unconstitutional.

A teacher on leave from his job at Scottsdale's Desert Mountain High School is facing charges after police found a loaded handgun, a drug pipe and two switchblades in his pickup truck while it was parked on campus.

This is a plainly illegal search of his truck, and it illustrates the problems with making things (rather than actions) illegal: when the object itself is forbidden, it's mere presence provides the crime. There is no credible defense; the accused must undertake to prove his or her innocence by proving another's guilt -- whether the police who "found" the contraband, or the criminal who framed the accused by placing the items where they could be found. The presence of contraband itself requires no ill intent, no witnesses, and admits to no 4th amendment defense, so long as it can be claimed by police that the contraband was "plainly visible" in some fashion.

A high school in western Kansas has hired a private company to search the school's premises periodically for weapons, drugs and alcohol. Inter Quest, an Oklahoma City-based firm, performed the first of its unannounced checks at Goodland High School on Jan. 15 and 16. A specially trained dog led an officer to search nine student vehicles. Officers found two handguns in one vehicle, a shotgun and a pellet gun inside another and marijuana inside a third vehicle. Five vehicles contained shotgun shells and fireworks were found inside another. The school called the students out of class to consent to the searches. Consent? CONSENT?! Bullshit. But then these are students, they don't have rights under the government mindset. In fact they are hardly people at all.

NEPTUNE, N.J. (AP) -- Four New Jersey school districts have been conducting drug residue tests at some of their schools for several months, but one has discontinued the practice because it found the testing kits to be unreliable.

The Toms River Regional and Southern Regional districts in Ocean County began testing in January without notifying the public. The tests also were implemented in the East Windsor Regional and Mercer County Vocational districts, and also are used in other states.

The testing is part of a federally funded pilot program that examines the effectiveness of the kits -- long used by law enforcement agencies -- within a school setting. At a cost of less than $1 each, the kit almost instantaneously detects trace amounts of marijuana, heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine on a variety of surfaces.

Our schools are becoming prisons. Anyone surprised?