Tag: 4th amendment

A Nation of Suspects

Some of the recent legal challenges to the use of surveillance by the Department of Homeland Security upon Americans have resulted in the revelation of truly terrifying behavior by the government, in direct defiance of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. We now know that the federal government spies on innocent Americans without suspicion and without warrants.

The spying seems to fall into several categories. The National Security Agency, which is in the Department of Defense, employs about 60,000 domestic spies. These are the folks who want us to believe that they go through the trouble of making applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for warrants to spy on foreigners.

Actually, from time to time they do go to this court, but their travels there — where judges are frisked upon entering and leaving the courthouse by the NSA agents who appear before them — serve as fig leaves for their massive warrantless spying on Americans. The FISA Court is unconstitutional because it issues warrants based on probable cause of communicating with a foreign person, rather than on probable cause of crime as the Fourth Amendment requires.

The courts have ruled consistently since the 1960s that spying — surveillance, as the feds call it — is a search, and the capture of data from a surveillance is a seizure.

The Fourth Amendment protects all persons in America — not just Americans — from warrantless searches and seizures of their “persons, houses, papers, and effects.” There are some well-recognized exceptions to this constitutional baseline, such as evidence that will quickly vanish or be seriously degraded, but those exceptions do not apply here as the NSA captures in real time all keystrokes on all digital devices and all fiber optic data transmitted into, out of and within the United States.

The judges of the FISA Court surely know that the Department of Justice lawyers and NSA agents who appear before them are going through a charade, and the court has been made a part of it. The charade is the pretense that all spying is done pursuant to the warrants that FISA Court judges issue. Former NSA agents have revealed publicly that this is hardly the case.

Nevertheless, the lowered standard from probable cause of crime to probable cause of communicating to a foreign person was crafted by Congress — in another of its many moments heedless of the Constitution. After a few years of this, the FISA Court began to issue warrants for spying on the Americans who communicate with foreigners, out to the sixth degree. A sixth grader can do the math, as this leads to hundreds of millions of Americans whose communications are captured.

A second category of spying is employed by the DHS. The DHS — now a 250,000-person strong federal police department nowhere countenanced by the Constitution — has sophisticated software that can read fingerprints at 15 feet and irises at 15 inches. So, if you wave goodbye or good riddance to an ICE agent, and he holds up his mobile phone, and you are in the federal system for any benign reason, he has captured your bank, health, legal and commercial records on the spot. If he talks to you in your car and is within 15 inches of your face, he can capture the same data.

As if all this were not enough, the feds and local police use a device called a Stingray, which mimics the signal sent to all mobile devices as if the device were being used to communicate. But the communication is just one way, as the Stingray will tell the government where the person possessing the mobile device is at any given moment. This, too, is a seizure of private personal information — the contents of the computer chip in your mobile device — which the Fourth Amendment characterizes as an “effect.”

And then there is the FBI, which now uses zero-click software. This permits agents without warrants or even approval of their superiors to engage in computer hacking without having to trick the hacked victim into clicking on a link. Computer hacking is a felony.

All of this surveillance is unconstitutional, dangerous and commonplace. It consists in the use of surveillance and law enforcement tools without articulable suspicion.

For 600 years, articulable suspicion — the lowest evidentiary standard we have — has been the baseline for all government behavior that targets an individual. Articulable suspicion is the fact-based ability to state why a person — not a group — should be targeted and for what crime. This is the same standard that must be met when police stop someone in public.

Anything less than articulable suspicion is a fishing expedition; stated differently, a general warrant. General warrants — which were used by British agents on American colonists — permitted the agents to stop anyone, to search anywhere and to seize anything without articulable suspicion. The Fourth Amendment outlawed them.

Keep reading

Defending The Fourth Amendment To Protect Gun Owners

All gun owners fully understand the vital importance of preserving the Second Amendment. But right behind that Constitutional Amendment in importance is the need to uphold the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

After all, without robust Fourth Amendment rights, we will never have much of a Second Amendment right. For that reason, both Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation have regularly filed amicus briefs to guard against erosion of Fourth Amendment rights. We recently filed such an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the High Court to ensure that law enforcement not abuse the investigative technique known as “knock and talk.”

As more and more states seek to ban more and more classes of previously legal firearms, gun confiscation has become an ever-greater threat. Historically, the Fourth Amendment’s protections have been greatest when applied to the home, which also happens to be where most guns are kept. The Supreme Court has discussed the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.

However, the courts have recognized that police have the right to “knock” on the door of your home, and “talk” to you – if you agree to speak. In Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that all visitors – including the police – have an “implicit license” to “[i] approach the home by the front path, [ii] knock promptly, [iii] wait briefly to be received, and then (absent invitation to linger longer) [iv] leave.” That rule seems entirely reasonable – but it is astonishing how police have come to abuse that “implicit license.”

In a recently decided case from North Carolina, State v. Reel, 297 N.C. App. 205 (N.C. Ct. App. 2024), the police broke every one of the rules, but the search was upheld. The officers suspected drug dealing was going on at a house, so they parked on a side street and crossed the defendant’s side yard – not the front yard. They followed a visitor to the front door, and when the defendant opened the door for the visitor, tried to force their way in behind her. The police never actually knocked. And, they never actually talked – except to demand the door be opened so they could rush in, claiming to have smelled marijuana. When the defendant refused and shut the door, another officer kicked in the door, searching for and seizing drugs. Thus, “knock and talk” was used as a pretext to conduct a warrantless search and seizure in a home. Nevertheless, North Carolina’s two highest courts approved.

GOA’s amicus brief urged the U.S. Supreme Court to impose a “bright-line” rule for law enforcement, so officers would know their limits, and judges would have a clear rule to enforce. We argue that since the “implied license” was based on the fact that any visitor – such as trick-or-treaters or girl scouts – to a house could “knock and talk,” the police could do the same. So we took that justification and suggested it be made the rule – a clear limitation on what the police could do. We proposed the rule to be:

The right of a police officer to conduct a “knock-and-talk” is no greater than a Girl Scout has to approach a house to sell cookies.

Since a Girl Scout cannot walk around your house to the back yard to the back door, neither can the police. Since a Girl Scout cannot come to your house in the middle of the night, neither can uninvited police. No peering through windows. No forcible entry. No hanging around without invitation from the occupant. No repeated trips back to harass the occupant. No surveillance devices. And, the occupant must have the right to refuse to talk, and to revoke the “implied license” for the police to remain and talk whenever he chooses.

The police have a tough enough job. Fuzzy rules of procedure not only jeopardizes the peoples’ liberties, but also law enforcement safety.

Keep reading

West Virginia Supreme Court Considers Whether Smell Of Marijuana Can Be Basis For Police To Search Homes

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia is considering a case that questions whether the odor of marijuana alone is enough for law enforcement to obtain a warrant to search a person’s home.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on an appeal of Berkeley County Circuit Court’s decision to throw out evidence Martinsburg police officers found in a home after detecting the “strong odor” of the drug. Excluding the evidence effectively stopped the state from prosecuting a man on drug charges, an attorney told justices last week.

Aaron Lewis was arrested in 2020 on three counts of drug possession with intent to deliver and being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm, according to reporting by the Herald-Mail.

Court documents say Martinsburg police were answering another man’s call about a suicidal woman who had reportedly stabbed herself when they came across Lewis while searching the caller’s backyard. Officers were unable to locate the woman so they started going door-to-door looking for her.

The officers went to Lewis’s home where his son, Aaron Lewis Jr. answered the door. The officers detected the “strong odor of marijuana,” according to court documents. The younger Lewis refused to give officers permission to search the home.

Before they obtained a search warrant, they entered the home to conduct a “protective sweep,” during which they found a bundle of money and two clear bowls with a leafy substance on the kitchen stove, court documents say. Two officers then left to obtain the search warrant while other officers stayed on scene to secure the apartment.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Hears Landmark Case On Geofence Warrants, Testing Digital Privacy Limits

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday heard oral arguments in Chatrie v. United States, a high-stakes case that could reshape Fourth Amendment protections in the digital age and determine the future of controversial “geofence” search warrants used by law enforcement.

Geofence warrants allow police and federal agents to compel companies like Google to disclose location data for all users present in a designated geographic area during a specific time window. Investigators use the tool to identify potential suspects by sifting through vast troves of smartphone location information, effectively searching first and developing probable cause later.

Civil liberties groups argue the practice is inherently overbroad and violates constitutional safeguards against unreasonable searches. Critics point to instances where innocent bystanders, protest attendees, and unrelated individuals have had their data swept up, sometimes due to warrants that extended far beyond the crime scene, reported Tech Crunch.

The case stems from the 2019 armed robbery of a bank in Virginia. Surveillance footage showed a suspect using a cellphone. Police obtained a geofence warrant from Google, requesting anonymized location data for devices within a small radius of the bank around the time of the crime. Google initially provided data for multiple accounts. Investigators then sought identifying information for a subset of users, including Okello Chatrie, who was later linked to the scene, arrested, and sentenced to more than 11 years in prison after pleading guilty.

Chatrie’s legal team challenged the warrant, contending it lacked sufficient probable cause tying him—or any specific account—to the robbery. Lower courts split on the issue, with one ruling the warrant failed to meet constitutional standards but ultimately allowing the evidence under the “good faith” exception. Chatrie’s appeal argues the warrant unconstitutionally permitted a broad search of hundreds of millions of Google users’ data.

Keep reading

Supreme Court To Review Geofencing In Pivotal Case For Privacy Rights

The Supreme Court on April 27 will hear oral arguments in a case with major implications for privacy rights—and how law enforcement uses Americans’ cell phone data while investigating crimes.

The case, Chatrie v. United States, centers on law enforcement’s use of “geofencing warrants”—judge-authorized requests for cell phone location data near the scene of a crime.

Okello Chatrie told the Supreme Court that the government’s use of these warrants, which resulted in a criminal conviction over his robbing a bank while his smart phone was on his person, violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The government, meanwhile, has argued that such data is not protected when provided voluntarily to a “third party” like Google.

The court said it would focus on the circumstances of Chatrie’s case rather than the constitutionality of geofencing more generally. However, experts say that the Supreme Court’s decision will reverberate through future cases concerning privacy in the digital age.

Dr. David Super, a professor of law at the Georgetown University Law Center, described the case to The Epoch Times as “once-in-a-generation,” whatever the outcome.

Chatrie’s Warrant

In 2019, law enforcement received a geofence warrant from a state court seeking anonymized location data for devices within 150 meters (about 500 feet) of the bank robbery. In this form, the data couldn’t be used to identify specific cellphone users.

After Google complied with the first request, law enforcement then sought location data for devices over a longer, two-hour period, without seeking an additional court warrant. Google again provided the information.

Then—still without seeking a warrant—investigators asked Google for “de-anonymized subscriber information for three devices,” and Google complied.

One of those devices belonged to Chatrie, and the information provided the basis for Chatrie’s eventual conviction for armed robbery.

Though Chatrie confessed, his lawyers argue that the geofencing evidence should be tossed because the warrant deprived him of his Fourth Amendment rights, which guarantees that “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.”

Chatrie’s lawyers argued that the geofence warrant allowed investigators to gather the location history of people who were near the scene of the crime even though there was no other probable cause.

Super told The Epoch Times that geofencing was “pivotal” to the case against Chatrie. “The question in Chatrie is whether something as dramatic as a geofencing search is limited by the Fourth Amendment and requires the government to show specific needs with a proper basis,” he said.

Keep reading

The Surveillance Accountability Act Demands Warrants for Data

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) have introduced the Surveillance Accountability Act, a bill that feels like someone took the Fourth Amendment and actually meant it.

The legislation aims “to ensure that all searches that significantly impinge on the privacy or security of a person require a warrant based on probable cause” and to create “a right of action for violations of Fourth Amendment rights.” That covers the kinds of searches federal agencies currently conduct without judicial oversight: pulling your financial records from banks, requesting your browsing history from ISPs, buying your location data from brokers, and harvesting your biometric information from surveillance cameras.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

The bill lands in the middle of a brutal Congressional fight over FISA Section 702, the surveillance authority that currently lets the FBI search Americans’ communications.

The new legislation goes much further than the various reform bills circulating around that debate. Where the SAFE Act and the Government Surveillance Reform Act target specific loopholes in FISA, the Surveillance Accountability Act tries to close all of them at once by rewriting the baseline rule: if the government wants your data, it needs a judge’s permission.

Keep reading

Justice Jackson Takes Aim at Fellow Justices, and the Results Aren’t Pretty

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is distinguishing herself on the U.S. Supreme Court — and not in a positive way. It’s as though she’s positioned on an island defined by woke ideology, racial justice, and equity, while the other eight justices remain on the mainland of restraint.

For proper context, it’s important to know about a case that was in front of her and the other members of the court.

The case centered on an early morning police stop in Washington, D.C., where a Metropolitan Police officer responded to a call about what was described as a suspicious vehicle. At around 2 a.m., the officer approached the car, and immediately—without any further provocation—two individuals fled the vehicle. A third person remained inside with the door open. That individual, identified only as J.W., slowly backed the car out of the parking lot.

The officer ordered the driver to put his hands up while drawing his service weapon.

The lower court, in this case the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (DCCA), ruled that the officer stopped R.W. without reasonable suspicion and concluded that this violated the Fourth Amendment. That amendment states:

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.

The Supreme Court heard the case and reversed the DCCA’s ruling in a 7-2 decision. Leftist Justice Elena Kagan joined the majority. Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson were in the minority on this one, though Sotomayor said she would not have agreed to hear the case.

In the end, the majority on the court upheld law enforcement’s authority to make a stop based on “the totality of the circumstances” involved.

Now that you have the context, let’s turn to one of our foremost legal minds, none other than Jonathan Turley, to lay it out with clarity. On the X platform, Turley posted, “Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has issued another sole stinging dissent…Jackson wrote that ‘I cannot fathom’ how the seven justices could second-guess the lower court in rejecting the police claims. She accused her colleagues of mere ‘wordsmithing.’”

Keep reading

Idaho Bans Mandatory Digital ID With New Privacy Law

Idaho just became one of the few states to draw a line against mandatory digital identification. Governor Brad Little signed Senate Bill 1299 on April 1, 2026, and the new law does something genuinely unusual in American state politics right now: it pushes back against digital ID rather than pushing it forward.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

The bill creates Section 67-2364 of the Idaho Code, prohibiting government entities from requiring “any person to obtain, maintain, present, or use digital identification.”

Approximately three-quarters of US states are currently offering or developing electronic driver’s licenses. The national momentum is clearly toward digital ID systems, with states like Arkansas, Texas, Georgia, and Utah all advancing their own versions in 2025 alone. Idaho is swimming against that current.

The bill, introduced by Senator Tammy Nichols, goes further than a simple opt-out. It prohibits public entities from denying, delaying, conditioning, or reducing “any service, benefit, license, employment, education, or access based on a person’s refusal or inability to use digital identification.”

That second clause, “or inability,” protects people who can’t use digital ID, not just those who won’t. Anyone without a smartphone, without reliable internet, without the technical literacy to navigate a digital wallet, keeps full access to government services. Physical, non-digital identification remains “valid for all governmental purposes” under the law.

The bill also addresses what happens when someone voluntarily shows a digital ID during a government interaction. A government entity cannot “require a person to surrender, unlock, or relinquish control of a personal electronic device for identity verification.” Handing your phone to a police officer or a clerk at the DMV is not the same as handing them a laminated card.

A phone contains your messages, your photos, your browsing history, and your location data. Presenting a digital ID “shall not constitute consent to search or access any other contents of a device.”

That’s a Fourth Amendment protection written directly into a state statute.

Keep reading

A Jury Approves Damages After 2 Texas Cops Snatched a Supposedly ‘Abandoned’ Girl From Her Home

More than seven years after two Texas cops kidnapped a teenaged girl they falsely claimed had been “abandoned,” a federal jury has concluded that the officers violated her Fourth Amendment rights by unreasonably seizing her from her home. In a verdict delivered last week, the jurors said that seizure also violated her parents’ due process rights under the 14th Amendment. And they agreed that one of the officers had violated the Fourth Amendment by searching the family’s kitchen without a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances. In the second phase of the trial, the jurors approved $175,000 in compensatory damages and $125,000 in punitive damages.

The verdict validates constitutional claims that Megan and Adam McMurry made in a  federal lawsuit they filed in October 2020, two years after Officers Alexandra Weaver and Kevin Brunner, both of whom worked for the Midland Independent School District, visited their apartment and left with their daughter, Jade, then 14. That intervention, the jury concluded, was not justified in the circumstances, since Jade was not in any danger. The verdict “was vindicating after having our lives turned upside down and trampled through for the past seven and a half years,” Megan McMurry told KMID, the ABC affiliate in Midland.

The bizarre episode at the center of the case happened when Adam McMurry, then a member of the National Guard, was deployed to the Middle East, and Megan McMurry, a special education teacher at Abell Junior High School in Midland, was in Kuwait looking into a job that would have allowed the family to live near him. Megan McMurry had alerted her colleagues to her trip and had asked two neighbors, Vanessa and Gabe Vallejos, to keep an eye on Jade and her brother, Connor, then 12, who was a student at the school where McMurry worked.

On October 26, 2018, the guidance counselor who was supposed to take Connor to school was ill, so she texted Weaver, who lived in the neighborhood, asking if she could give Connor a ride. Although another Abell employee ended up bringing Connor to school, Weaver’s involvement did not end there.

Weaver was convinced that Jade had been “abandoned” and was in urgent need of a “welfare check.” Brunner, her supervisor, agreed, which is how they both ended up at the McMurrys’ apartment that morning.

Jade, who was homeschooled and in the midst of her online studies, did not understand what the cops were doing there. But within a minute, they had decided she needed to be rescued.

Keep reading

Hawaii Residents Should Be Terrified to Find Out What Will Happen If These Bills Pass

Remember that scene in Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith when the Galactic Senate votes to give all-encompassing emergency powers to Emperor Palpatine?

That’s basically what will happen in Hawaii if a pair of emergency powers bills are passed. State lawmakers have advanced two bills that would empower the governor to declare an emergency and then order quarantines, enter private property, suspend existing statutes, regulate and seize firearms, and completely exterminate the Jedi order.

Okay, I made that last one up, but the fact remains: These bills are some of the scariest I’ve seen at any level of government lately.

House Bill 2236 and Senate Bill 2151 are moving through the state legislature at the same time that Gov. Josh Green is still ruling under a longstanding housing emergency proclamation that suspended land-use and transparency rules to fast-track home construction, Hawaii Public Radio reported.

The bill would grant the governor the authority to “require the quarantine or segregation of persons who are affected with or believed to have been exposed to any infectious, communicable, or other disease” and to “authorize without the permission of the owners or occupants, entry on private premises for any of these purposes.”

The state would also be empowered to “authorize that public nuisances be summarily abated and, if need be, that the property be destroyed by any police officer or authorized person.”

Those opposing the measures point out the impact it will have on constitutional rights. Advocacy group Hawaii Capitol Watch warned that the bills “would ensure that executive branch leaders do not arbitrarily call long-standing and complex societal challenges, such as unaffordable housing or illegal activity, as ‘emergencies’ in order to suspend our environmental, cultural protection, good governance, procurement, and labor laws indefinitely – as the Governor attempted to do with his emergency proclamation on (un)affordable housing.”

Keep reading