Tag: warrantless surveillance

Pennsylvania High Court Rules Police Can Access Google Searches Without Warrant

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has a new definition of “reasonable expectation.” According to the justices, it’s no longer reasonable to assume that what you type into Google is yours to keep.

In a decision that reads like a love letter to the surveillance economy, the court ruled that police were within their rights to access a convicted rapist’s search history without a warrant. The reasoning is that everyone knows they’re being watched anyway.

The opinion, issued Tuesday, leaned on the idea that the public has already surrendered its privacy to Silicon Valley.

We obtained a copy of the ruling for you here.

“It is common knowledge that websites, internet-based applications, and internet service providers collect, and then sell, user data,” the court said, as if mass exploitation of personal information had become a civic tradition.

Because that practice is so widely known, the court concluded, users cannot reasonably expect privacy. In other words, if corporations do it first, the government gets a free pass.

The case traces back to a rape and home invasion investigation that had gone cold. In a final effort, police asked Google to identify anyone who searched for the victim’s address the week before the crime. Google obliged. The search came from an IP address linked to John Edward Kurtz, later convicted in the case.

It’s hard to argue with the result; no one’s defending a rapist, but the method drew a line through an already fading concept: digital privacy.

Investigators didn’t start with a suspect; they started with everyone. That’s the quiet power of a “reverse keyword search,” a dragnet that scoops up the thoughts of every user who happens to type a particular phrase.

The justices pointed to Google’s own privacy policy as a kind of consent form. “In the case before us, Google went beyond subtle indicators,” they wrote. “Google expressly informed its users that one should not expect any privacy when using its services.”

Keep reading

Tulsi Gabbard Now Supports FISA-702 In Order To Get Confirmed As Director Of National Intelligence

As the story is told [SEE HERE], and it aligns with every scintilla of researched data on the darkest and deepest elements of the Deep State, DNI nominee Tulsi Gabbard has reversed her position and will now support FISA-702, the warrantless searches of American communication and electronic metadata.

Apparently the FISA process and the 702 aspect (specific to American citizens) is the line in the sand the Senate Select Intelligence Committee has drawn.  If Tulsi Gabbard does not support it, her confirmation is in doubt.  As a result, she has reportedly reversed her position and now supports it.

This is absolutely par for the course.

It should be remembered, in the last reauthorization of FISA-702 congress exempted themselves from the warrantless search and surveillance system used by the U.S. Intelligence Apparatus.  Congress forbids the FBI or any entity with access to the NSA database, from being allowed to use the process to search themselves or their staff.  However, every other American does not enjoy this same protection.

After spending years asking every representative of consequence why they support the FISA-702 process, I can tell you every one of them says they believe it is needed because the IC tells them there are just too many domestic terror threats that need to be monitored.

It is impossible to find a person in DC who will forcefully try to stop FISA-702 reauthorization.

If you ask me why in hindsight, I now take the position that FISA-702 is the gateway to the massive surveillance system currently being put into place using Real ID and the AI facial recognition software provided by Palantir (CIA exploit).  In essence, the gateway that allows the full-scale surveillance state, is opened by the prior authorization of FISA-702 that negates any 4th amendment protection.

Why? Because all of the surveillance mechanisms within the network being updated and enhanced by AI search and capture, comes from the IC being allowed to exploit the NSA database.  That same database access allowance is the targeting mechanism for FISA-702.  If warrantless searches of the NSA database were stopped, the Palantir/IC and Tech Bro collaboration could hit a brick wall.

Against this backdrop, the SSCI telling Tulsi Gabbard that her nomination approval is contingent upon her support for FISA-702, simply makes sense.

WASHINGTON DC – […] Multiple senators from both parties who met with the former Hawaii lawmaker in recent days told us they emerged from those sessions unsure about Gabbard’s position on the 702 program. During these meetings, senators have pressed Gabbard on her previous public statements on the issue, as well as her votes against 702 reauthorization throughout her eight years in Congress.

GOP national security hawks in particular viewed this as problematic, we’re told, fueling renewed doubts about her confirmation prospects. Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, suggested on a WSJ podcast Wednesday that Gabbard should disavow her previous opposition to the 702 program.

Keep reading

Oregon Police Improperly Used Aerial Camera To Bust Marijuana Grow, State Appeals Court Says

Oregon’s Court of Appeals chided the state’s police force on Wednesday for using warrantless “technologically-enhanced surveillance” to bust an illegal marijuana operation, sending the court’s clearest message yet about how law enforcement may use the increasingly popular, but controversial technology.

The case, captured in an eight-page ruling from a three-judge panel, centers on a June 2021 multi-county investigation involving the Polk County Sheriff’s Office and Oregon State Police. The defendant, 54-year-old Sengdara Nakhiengchahn, was not the target of the investigation, but Oregon State Police Sergeant Tyler Bechtel, a leading officer on the case, noticed “what looked to be a massive agricultural operation” that “was likely a marijuana grow,” while flying in a surveillance plane nearly 5,000 feet in the air, according to the ruling.

The defendant was charged in August 2021 with two felonies for possession and manufacturing of marijuana. She pled guilty in a conditional deal that allowed her to get the possession charge dropped by serving two years of probation, court records show. But she maintained her right to appeal the charges, arguing the evidence gathered from aerial surveillance constitutes a warrantless and unlawful search and should not have been admissible.

The appeals court agreed with Nakhiengchahn, returning the case back to the trial court where she can withdraw her guilty plea. Bechtel did not respond to an email seeking comment.

“While the trial court didn’t agree with us, we’re grateful the appellate court did,” said Luke Miller, Nakhiengchahn’s trial attorney, in a statement. “It’s important for Oregonians to maintain the right to privacy, and be free from government intrusion absent legal justification for such intrusion.”

Jenny Hansson, a spokeswoman for the Oregon Department of Justice, said officials were still reviewing the decision and could decide to appeal the court’s ruling in the coming weeks.

Jolene Kelly, a spokeswoman for the Oregon State Police, declined to comment on the ruling or its findings, but said in an email the agency “remains committed to following applicable laws and court directives.”

The ruling was lauded by civil rights advocates and privacy watchdogs who were fresh off of a fight in the Oregon Legislature over Senate Bill 238, which would have extended unprecedented power to police to use unmanned aerial surveillance devices like drones when responding to 911 calls, executing a warrant or responding to “exigent circumstances.” The bill ultimately died in the House Rules Committee without a vote.

The ACLU of Oregon opposed the bill, warning in a news release that it was unnecessary and “undermines basic rights including privacy and free speech.”

Kelly Simon, legal director of the ACLU of Oregon, said Wednesday’s ruling marks an “important decision to ensure that as police technology advances, we are maintaining the integrity of our warrant requirements under the Oregon Constitution.”

“We’re beginning to see in the surveillance tech industry all sorts of high-powered enhancements,” she told the Capital Chronicle. “It is important that our courts maintain the integrity of our warrant requirements by making sure that if law enforcement wants to use those enhancements, they go to court first, they present the evidence they have against a person and they get permission to do that.”

In the ruling, Justice Scott A. Shorr wrote that state police saw “materially different information” through a camera attached to their aircraft than what could’ve been seen with a naked eye, striking down a decision by Polk County Circuit Judge Rafael A. Caso to allow evidence tied to the camera footage to be admitted at trial.

“We have never upheld as constitutionally permissible an officer’s technologically enhanced surveillance to see what was otherwise indiscernible. We decline to do so here,” Shorr said. “In this case, the officer used technology to obtain information from inside defendant’s private structures that was undetectable from his vantage point in public airspace.”

Keep reading

Fifth Circuit Affirms Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in Cloud Storage in Dropbox Case

A federal appeals court has ruled that state officials violated the Fourth Amendment when they orchestrated the covert retrieval of documents from a nonprofit’s Dropbox folder, an outcome that significantly strengthens legal protections for digital privacy in cloud-based environments.

In a 25-page decision issued May 28, 2025, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that The Heidi Group, a Texas-based pro-life healthcare organization, had a reasonable expectation of privacy in its digital files and that a state investigator’s role in acquiring them without judicial authorization amounted to an unconstitutional search.

We obtained a copy of the decision for you here.

Writing for the court, Judge Andrew S. Oldham emphasized that the constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches extends to “the content of stored electronic communications,” including files housed in commercial cloud platforms.

“Heidi has a reasonable expectation of privacy in its documents and files uploaded to Dropbox,” the opinion stated. “Heidi’s records are analogous to letters, phone calls, emails, and social media messages: Each contains information content transmitted through or stored with an intermediary that is not intended to ‘be broadcast to the world.’”

The controversy arose after Phyllis Morgan, a former employee of The Heidi Group, exploited her lingering access to the organization’s Dropbox folder for nearly a year after being terminated.

Rather than reporting the breach or seeking lawful channels to obtain the data, a senior investigator from the Texas Health and Human Services Commission’s Office of Inspector General (OIG), Gaylon Dacus, allegedly encouraged the ex-employee to continue accessing the nonprofit’s confidential materials and forward them to the state.

Keep reading

‘Snooping Around’: Government Officials Under Fire for Bypassing State Constitution

‘It makes it very dangerous when you’re hunting with rifles and people aren’t wearing colors that make them easy to see.’

A court is being asked to act against state officials who bypass the requirements of their own state constitution.

The situation is that while the Alabama Constitution “makes it clear that if the government wants to come searching on your property, they need a warrant based on probable cause,” agents from the state Department of Conservation and Natural Resources simply cite a statute to ignore that requirement.

The Institute for Justice now is working with three Alabama residents to sue over the practice that has agents invading and searching private property not only without a warrant, but without consent.

The plaintiffs are Killen residents Dalton Boley and Regina Williams and Muscle Shoals resident Dale Liles, who all took action after facing “multiple” privacy intrusions by game wardens.

None ever has been charged with hunting violations, “yet game wardens have snooped around on their properties without warrants on multiple occasions. That’s because of an Alabama statute that allows game wardens to ‘enter upon any land … in the performance of their duty.’ Whether it’s a posted field or residential yard, the statute gives wardens broad power to roam around private property without any warrant,” the IJ said.

But, IJ lawyer Suranjan Sen explained, “The Alabama Constitution makes it clear that if the government wants to come searching on your property, they need a warrant based on probable cause, and game wardens are not exempt from the Constitution.”

Williams owns 10 acres in Killen and had used it for decades, but as she aged she gave her neighbor, Boley, and his family permission to use it.

Then the game wardens arrived.

Keep reading

FBI’s Warrantless Search Ruled Unconstitutional in a Blow to Government Spying

A case that started a decade ago with a New York City man’s arrest at John F. Kennedy Airport for allegedly trying to join a Pakistani terrorist group has now dealt a setback to government spying powers.

In a decision that could feed into a looming fight over government surveillance, a federal court ruled last month that FBI agents violated the man’s constitutional rights when they searched National Security Agency databases for information on him dozens of times without a warrant.

The decision gives a boost to the surveillance critics who have long asked Congress to impose a warrant requirement on “backdoor” searches of NSA data collected under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA.

Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the FBI, Kash Patel, has called for “major reform” of Section 702. He faces a Thursday confirmation hearing where surveillance hawks on the Senate Intelligence Committee could grill him about that position. Trump’s other nominees, however, have lined up to back the law.

The parties to the New York City case have not signaled whether they intend to appeal the ruling in the case against Agron Hasbajrami, who remains imprisoned. But if it stands, the decision could play a role in thecongressional debate over the spying law when it expires in April 2026.

Keep reading

Federal Court Rules Warrant is Required for Section 702 Backdoor Searches of Americans’ Communications

A federal district court has delivered a pivotal ruling that strikes at the heart of unchecked government surveillance. In the criminal case United States v. Hasbajrami, the court determined that backdoor searches of vast databases containing Americans’ private communications — collected under Section 702 — typically require a warrant. This judgment comes after more than a decade of legal battles and follows the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ 2019 finding that such searches constitute “separate Fourth Amendment events,” leaving it to the lower court to address the warrant requirement. That question has now been resolved.

Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) grants the intelligence community the authority to collect communications between foreign targets, ostensibly for national security purposes.

However, when these exchanges involve individuals on US soil, their communications are also intercepted and stored. Federal agencies have claimed that accessing this data for searches doesn’t require additional judicial oversight. For years privacy groups have argued this practice violates the Fourth Amendment. Now, a court has finally concurred.

The case revolves around Agron Hasbajrami, a US resident arrested at JFK airport in 2011 as he prepared to travel to Pakistan. He was accused of providing material support to terrorists. The government later disclosed that its evidence included emails between Hasbajrami and an unnamed foreigner allegedly “linked” to terrorist groups. These emails had been warrantlessly collected through Section 702 programs and later searched — again without a warrant — using terms associated with Hasbajrami.

While Section 702 permits the surveillance of communications involving foreign nationals, the court ruled that such a broad “foreign intelligence exception” cannot routinely override the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement when those communications are searched by law enforcement.

Keep reading

There’s More… House Judiciary GOP Releases Damning Report on How the Biden’s Federal Government Weaponized the ‘Bank Secrecy Act’ to Spy on Americans

In a damning new report released by the House Judiciary Committee and the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, Republicans claim the federal government has transformed the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) into a tool for spying on Americans.

The Gateway Pundit first reported on this investigation on Monday.

The report alleges that federal law enforcement agencies under Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, including the FBI, have turned financial institutions into de facto arms of the government, bypassing legal safeguards to obtain sensitive financial data.

Using Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) and Currency Transaction Reports (CTRs), federal agencies have accessed millions of financial records without probable cause or warrants.

The GOP-led investigation found that millions of these reports are filed annually, with nearly 4.6 million SARs submitted in 2023 alone.

What’s more alarming is the scope of access. The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) allows over 25,000 government officials to access sensitive financial data without a warrant.

Documents uncovered by the committee show that, in 2023, federal agencies ran over 3.3 million searches in FinCEN’s database—equivalent to 9,000 warrantless searches per day.

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

Police are Using Drones More and Spending More For Them

Police in Minnesota are buying and flying more drones than ever before, according to an annual report recently released by the state’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA). Minnesotan law enforcement flew their drones without a warrant 4,326 times in 2023, racking up a state-wide expense of over $1 million. This marks a large, 41 percent increase from 2022, when departments across the state used drones 3,076 times and spent $646,531.24 on using them. The data show that more was spent on drones last year than in the previous two years combined. Minneapolis Police Department, the state’s largest police department, implemented a new drone program at the end of 2022 and reported that its 63 warrantless flights in 2023 cost nearly $100,000.

Since 2020, the state of Minnesota has been obligated to put out a yearly report documenting every time and reason law enforcement agencies in the state — local, county, or state-wide — used unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), more commonly known as drones, without a warrant. This is partly because Minnesota law requires a warrant for law enforcement to use drones except for specific situations listed in the statute. The State Court Administrator is also required to provide a public report of the number of warrants issued for the use of UAVs, and the data gathered by them. These regular reports give us a glimpse into how police are actually using these devices and how often. As more and more police departments around the country use drones or experiment with drones as first responders, it offers an example of how transparency around drone adoption can be done.

You can read our blog about the 2021 Minnesota report here.

Keep reading