Tag: 4th amendment

Home Invasions On The Rise: Constitution-Free Policing In Trump’s America

“One of the most essential branches of English liberty is the freedom of one’s house. A man’s house is his castle.”—James Otis, Revolutionary War activist, on the Writs of Assistance, 1761

What the Founders rebelled against—armed government agents invading homes without cause—we are now being told to accept in the so-called name of law and order.

Imagine it: it’s the middle of the night. Your neighborhood is asleep. Suddenly, your front door is splintered by battering rams. Shadowy figures flood your home, screaming orders, pointing guns, threatening violence. You and your children are dragged out into the night—barefoot, in your underwear, in the rain.

Your home is torn apart. Your valuables seized. Your sense of safety, demolished.

But this isn’t a robbery by lawless criminals.

This is what terror policing looks like in Trump’s America: raids by night, flashbangs at dawn, mistaken identities, and shattered lives.

On April 24, 2025, in Oklahoma City, 20 heavily armed federal agents from ICE, the FBI, and DHS kicked in the door of a home where a woman and her three daughters—all American citizens—were sleeping. They were forced out of bed at gunpoint and made to wait in the rain while agents ransacked the house, confiscating their belongings.

It was the wrong house. The wrong family.

There were no apologies. No compensation. No accountability.

This is the new face of American policing, and it’s about to get so much worse thanks to the President Trump’s latest executive order, which aims to eliminate federal oversight and empower local law enforcement to act with impunity.

Titled “Strengthening and Unleashing America’s Law Enforcement to Pursue Criminals and Protect Innocent Citizens,” the executive order announced on April 28, 2025, removes restraints on police power, offers enhanced federal protections for officers accused of misconduct, expands access to military-grade equipment, and nullifies key oversight provisions from prior reform efforts.

Trump’s supporters have long praised his efforts to deregulate business and government under the slogan of “no handcuffs.” But when that logic is applied to law enforcement, the result isn’t freedom—it’s unchecked power.

What it really means is no restraints on police power—while the rest of us are left with fewer rights, less recourse, and a Constitution increasingly ignored behind the barrel of a gun.

This isn’t just a political shift. It’s a constitutional unraveling.

Keep reading

The Net Neutrality Hydra: Twice Decapitated, Still Standing

We still use the internet under net neutrality regulations (aka Obamanet), despite its repeal by the Trump administration in 2017 and an unsuccessful attempt to reimpose them on the federal level by the Biden administration.

The issue persists because regulations equivalent to net neutrality were enacted as state laws by nearly all Democrat-controlled states, effectively imposing it as a nationwide mandate. For example, California passed a harsh net neutrality law, SB-822, in 2018 while the FCC repeal of Obamanet was still enjoined and litigated. This California legislation was challenged by industry groups in 2018, who were joined by the Department of Justice in 2020. This was a half-hearted effort. The plaintiffs brought only claims and arguments based on federal preemption. The court did not grant an injunction, and the litigation continued into the Biden administration, when plaintiffs dropped their case.

Plaintiffs elected not to bring constitutional claims, despite net neutrality laws and regulations breaching at least the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, and the famous Section 230. The industry groups were likely intimidated, and the DOJ was in shambles.

Contrary to the massive propaganda, net neutrality regulations and laws do not regulate broadband internet service providers. These laws regulate how citizens access and use the internet from their homes. It is achieved by defining all the ways customers want to obtain content and services over the internet as “broadband internet access,” then prohibiting all services that allow customers to exercise their First and Fourth Amendment rights. The target of the regulations is the citizenry, not industry.

Keep reading

Court Rules Warrantless Section 702 Searches Violated the Fourth Amendment

In a long-awaited ruling in United States v. Hasbajrami, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York last night held that warrantless queries — or searches — conducted under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act violated the Fourth Amendment. The ruling is the first of its kind, and it follows years of public revelations about how Section 702 has been used by the government to conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans, including protesters, members of Congress, and journalists.

The court’s opinion addresses numerous queries the FBI conducted of the defendant, Mr. Agron Hasbajrami, during an investigation years ago. The government initially hid its use of Section 702 in Mr. Hasbajrami’s case and others, reversing course only after the Department of Justice’s policy of wrongly concealing Section 702 surveillance in criminal cases came to light.

“This is a major constitutional ruling on one of the most abused provisions of FISA,” said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “As the court recognized, the FBI’s rampant digital searches of Americans are an immense invasion of privacy, and trigger the bedrock protections of the Fourth Amendment. Section 702 is long overdue for reform by Congress, and this opinion shows why.”

The decision follows a groundbreaking 2019 ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which recognized that Section 702 queries of people in the United States are searches that trigger separate Fourth Amendment scrutiny. The court of appeals sent the case back to the lower court for further constitutional analysis, culminating in yesterday’s ruling. While the new opinion holds that the FBI’s Section 702 queries violated the Fourth Amendment, the court ultimately denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the resulting evidence on separate grounds.

Keep reading

Pennsylvania Angler Fights Back Against Warrantless Property Searches by Fish & Boat Commission

In a bold move to defend his constitutional rights, Tim Thomas, a resident of Susquehanna County, has filed a federal lawsuit against the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission.

The case challenges a state law that allows waterways conservation officers (WCOs) to enter private property without a warrant. Thomas, with the support of the Institute for Justice (IJ), hopes to strike down this law and restore the Fourth Amendment protections against warrantless searches.

Thomas and his late wife, Stephanie, bought their peaceful lakeside cabin on Butler Lake in 2014, but their sanctuary was soon disrupted. In 2023, Officer Ty Moon of the Fish and Boat Commission entered their property on two occasions without a warrant based on unfounded fishing violations.

Moon ignored multiple “No Trespassing” signs, walked around their home, and even confiscated fishing rods from Thomas’ dock. Both citations were later dismissed in court.

When WCO Moon entered the Thomases’ side yard, Stephanie (Tim Thomas’ wife) was taking a bath in the cabin, which has an uncovered window facing the yard; WCO Moon walked within 3 feet of that window as he walked through the side yard and into the backyard.

What troubles Thomas most is the sense of invasion. “We bought this cabin for peace and privacy,” he said, recalling how Moon passed by his windows, even as his wife, battling stage four cancer, was inside. “The first time was bad enough, but the second time felt even more intrusive.”

Thomas’ lawsuit, filed in September 2024, highlights the conflict between Pennsylvania law and the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens from unreasonable searches.

The law in question grants WCOs sweeping authority to enter private land and conduct searches without a warrant, a power far beyond what is granted to typical law enforcement officers.

John Wrench, an attorney with IJ, emphasized the gravity of the case. “You don’t lose your constitutional rights because you live near a lake,” he said. “If the government wants to search your property, they need a warrant. That’s a fundamental right in this country.”

The lawsuit follows other similar legal battles challenging the so-called “Open Fields Doctrine,” which permits law enforcement to search rural lands without warrants under certain conditions. Recent victories, like one in Tennessee earlier this year challenging warrantless trespassing and surveillance on private land, suggest a growing push to restore Fourth Amendment protections against such overreach.

Keep reading

The Biden Regime Has Just Issued a Very Suspicious Directive Permitting Military Intervention in US Domestic Affairs

The Department of Homeland Security has flagged individuals questioning COVID-19 origins, vaccine efficacy, and election integrity as potential domestic terrorism threats.

Is a coup being set in place?

A new Department of Defense directive 5240.01 issued September 27, 2024, just prior to the November presidential election allows the US military to use lethal force against American citizens in assisting police authorities in domestic disturbances.

A report on this development lists these civil liberties concerns:

Right to protest: There are fears that expanded authority could suppress legitimate protests.

Privacy rights: Increased military involvement in domestic intelligence gathering could infringe on privacy.

Due process: The military’s role in law enforcement could bypass standard due process protections.

Freedom of speech: The broad definition of “national security threats” could target individuals for their political beliefs.

Civilian control: The expanded military role could erode civilian oversight of the military.

Here are some Constitutional concerns:

Challenging the Posse Comitatus Act: This Act traditionally limits the powers of the federal government in using military personnel for domestic law enforcement. The new DoD directive, by permitting the use of lethal force through military assistance in civilian law enforcement, may push the boundaries of these limitations.

Potential First Amendment Concerns: Natural health advocates and others exercising their First Amendment rights, such as questioning the government’s response to COVID-19 or the integrity of elections, have been labeled as potential domestic extremists and/or terrorists by some agencies. This directive could expand those classifications into scenarios involving lethal force interventions, potentially chilling free speech under the guise of national security.

Fourth Amendment Considerations: This directive also allows intelligence sharing between military and law enforcement under emergency conditions, raising questions about the right to privacy and the potential for expanded surveillance.

Due Process Implications (Fifth Amendment): The possibility of military use of lethal force in domestic scenarios introduces concerns about how due process protections might be maintained before potentially life-altering decisions are made.

Why these ominous changes one month before the election? Is something in the works? Why is there no reporting and no debate on this change in policy?

Here is the Directive: https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/524001p.PDF?ver=UpTwJ66AyyBgvy7wFyTGbA%3d%3d

Here is the report: https://stateofthenation.co/?p=256688

Ever since the CIA used the Washington Post and the media to cover up the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the term, “conspiracy theory,” introduced by the CIA, has been used by the presstitutes and government to demonize truth and those who speak truth, and to protect official narratives, such as “Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.”

Unless Trump cuts a deal with Democrats not to hold them accountable and also a deal with the Ruling Elite not to interfere with their control, I can see no way that either will permit Trump to be President.

Keep reading

The Government Compels Silence Again

When Congress enacted the Stored Communications Act of 1986 (SCA), it claimed the statute would guarantee the privacy of digital data that service providers were retaining in storage. The act prohibited the providers from sharing the stored data, and it prohibited unauthorized access to the data, commonly called computer hacking – except, of course, if the recipients or the hackers were working for the federal government.

Just as it did with the Patriot Act of 2001 – which permits one federal agent to authorize another to conduct a search of stored data, without a judicially issued search warrant – the SCA permits judges to issue “orders” for searches without meeting the probable cause standard required by the Fourth Amendment.

Just like the Patriot Act – which in its original form prohibited the recipient of agent-issued search warrants, called National Security Letters (NSLs), from telling any persons of their existence – the SCA requires judges who issue orders for a search, upon the request of the government, to bar the custodian of the data who has received the order from informing the person whose data is sought.

What if the person whose data is sought has a claim of privacy on the data? What if the owner and creator of the data relied on the Fourth Amendment to keep the government’s hands off of it? What if that person was the President of the United States at the time he created the data? What if he has a claim of executive privilege on it? What if all persons have a privacy claim on all stored data and have a right to resist the government’s efforts to seek it?

Keep reading

Judge Ho rules that geofence warrants are “categorically prohibited by the Fourth Amendment” – “general, exploratory rummaging” by law enforcement is ILLEGAL

The federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is maintaining its position that so-called geofence warrants, which were used to track Jan. 6, 2021, “insurrection” participants, are “categorically prohibited by the Fourth Amendment,” which protects We the People from unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement and other arms of the government.

Judge James C. Ho issued an opinion that while geofence warrants “are powerful tools for investigating and deterring crime,” they overtly violate the U.S. Constitution and the protections it affords to people living in this country.

“The defendants here engaged in a violent robbery – and likely would have gotten away with it, but for this new technology,” Judge Ho wrote. “So I fully recognize that our panel decision today will inevitably hamper legitimate law enforcement interests.”

“But hamstringing the government is the whole point of our Constitution. Our Founders recognized that the government will not always be comprised of publicly-spirited officers – and that even good faith actors can be overcome by the zealous pursuit of legitimate public interests.”

Justice Ho also quoted The Federalist No. 51, at 349 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) which reads in support of his ruling:

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary,” but “experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions” because of “human nature,” which makes it “necessary to control the abuses of government.”

Keep reading

Customs Officers Need a Warrant to Search Your Cellphone at JFK

Judge Nina Morrison of the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and Long Island) has ruled that police, including officers of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), need a warrant to search your cellphone at JFK International Airport, even when you are entering or leaving the US.

This ruling is certainly a positive development. It’s a break with a line of judicial decisions that have made US borders and international airports a Fourth Amendment-free zone, even for US citizens. It’s likely to influence other judges and other courts, even though — as a ruling from a District Court rather than an appellate court — it doesn’t set a precedent that’s binding even on other judges in the same Federal judicial district.

But there are important issues that weren’t addressed in this case, and important things you need to know to exercise your rights at JFK or other airports — even if judges in future cases in the same or other judicial districts are persuaded by the ruling in this case.

Keep reading

A Florida Man Was Arrested for Filming Marion County Sheriff’s Deputies. Now He’s Suing.

A Florida man has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit three years after a Marion County sheriff’s deputy arrested him for filming officers from a public sidewalk.

In 2021, Marion County Sheriff’s Deputy Neil Rosaci arrested George Nathansen and charged him with obstruction of justice for refusing to follow his orders to leave the scene of an investigation. However, body camera footage showed Nathansen standing at least 30 feet away on a public sidewalk before Rosaci walked over and handcuffed him.

In Nathansen’s lawsuit, filed last Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, he alleges that Rosaci and the Marion County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) violated his Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights by falsely arresting and incarcerating him.

Numerous federal appeals courts have ruled that filming the police is protected under the First Amendment, but police around the country continue to illegally arrest people for it. The Justice Department released a report this month on pervasive civil rights violations by the Phoenix Police Department, including retaliating against citizens who were trying to record them. Earlier this year, Texas prosecutors dropped charges against a citizen journalist who was arrested, strip-searched, and jailed for filming police.

Nathansen’s case is yet another example of police retaliation against someone for core First Amendment activities.

The incident began on July 24, 2021, when Rosaci arrived at the scene of a car crash. While deputies were talking to the two parties involved in the accident, Nathansen arrived and began filming with his cell phone. There are a growing number of self-styled “First Amendment auditors” around the country who record police interactions and post them online. (In response to alleged harassment, several states have passed dubious “buffer-zone” laws that criminalize being too close to a first responder.) 

Rosaci’s body camera footage, obtained by the Ocala Post, showed that Nathansen was filming near the deputies’ cars when Rosaci first shooed him away and told him, “You can stand on the sidewalk over there.”

Keep reading

Michigan Supreme Court Allows Evidence Collected by Drone, Without a Warrant

Last week, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled unanimously that evidence collected illegally could still be used to enforce civil penalties.

Todd and Heather Maxon keep cars on their five-acre property in Long Lake Township. The township sued in 2007, alleging that the Maxons were violating a zoning ordinance by keeping “junk” on the property. When the Maxons fought back, the township agreed to drop the charges and reimburse attorney fees, and in exchange, the Maxons would not expand the number of cars on the property.

Township officials heard that the Maxons’ collection was growing, but the cars were hidden from the road, so they had no way to verify it without a warrant—or so you would think. Instead, officials hired a company to surveil the property with aerial drones on three different occasions. Finding that the collection had indeed expanded, the township sued the Maxons for violating the agreement.

The Maxons filed to suppress the drone evidence as a Fourth Amendment violation, since the township never obtained a warrant. The case made its way to the Michigan Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in October. The court had previously remanded the case back to the Michigan Court of Appeals to determine “whether the exclusionary rule applies to this dispute.” The exclusionary rule holds that evidence obtained illegally cannot be introduced at trial.

Last week, in a unanimous decision, the Michigan Supreme Court sided with the township. “The exclusionary rule may not be applied to civil enforcement proceedings that effectuate local zoning and nuisance ordinances,” wrote Justice Brian Zahra, adding that “the costs of excluding the drone evidence outweighed the benefits of suppressing it.”

“Generally, the exclusionary rule operates to exclude or suppress evidence in certain legal
proceedings if the evidence is obtained in violation of a person’s constitutional rights,” Zahra wrote. “Caselaw, however, has never suggested that the exclusionary rule bars the introduction of illegally seized evidence in all proceedings or against all persons. Given the history of the rule, it is only applicable when the objective of deterring wrongful law enforcement conduct is most effectively met.”

The court of appeals originally determined that the search had violated the Fourth Amendment before the higher court sent it back for further consideration. “Because the Supreme Court limited our review to the exclusionary rule’s role in this dispute, we proceed by assuming that a Fourth Amendment violation occurred,” wrote Chief Judge Elizabeth Gleicher of the Michigan Court of Appeals.

But the state supreme court punted on that issue: “Because the exclusionary rule did not apply in this civil proceeding to enforce zoning and nuisance ordinances,” Zahra wrote, “the Court declined to address whether the use of an aerial drone under the circumstances of this case was an unreasonable search or seizure for purposes of the United States or Michigan Constitutions.”

In other words, the state’s highest court decided that it was irrelevant whether the search violated the Fourth Amendment because the evidence would not be excluded either way, so long as the search was conducted to investigate civil and not criminal violations.

Keep reading