Posted on 02/11/2010 8:58:30 AM PST by Cheap_Hessian
Two years ago, when the FBI was stymied by a band of armed robbers known as the "Scarecrow Bandits" that had robbed more than 20 Texas banks, it came up with a novel method of locating the thieves.
FBI agents obtained logs from mobile phone companies corresponding to what their cellular towers had recorded at the time of a dozen different bank robberies in the Dallas area. The voluminous records showed that two phones had made calls around the time of all 12 heists, and that those phones belonged to men named Tony Hewitt and Corey Duffey. A jury eventually convicted the duo of multiple bank robbery and weapons charges.
Even though police are tapping into the locations of mobile phones thousands of times a year, the legal ground rules remain unclear, and federal privacy laws written a generation ago are ambiguous at best. On Friday, the first federal appeals court to consider the topic will hear oral arguments (PDF) in a case that could establish new standards for locating wireless devices.
In that case, the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.
Those claims have alarmed the ACLU and other civil liberties groups, which have opposed the Justice Department's request and plan to tell the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia that Americans' privacy deserves more protection and judicial oversight than what the administration has proposed.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.cnet.com ...
Too late, I’m afraid.
Part of this rests on the claim that we, the freeborn citizens of the “land of the (used to be) free”, don’t “enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy” when we use our cell phones.
In U.S. v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976), the Supreme Court ruled that we don’t have privacy in banking because he knows that the teller could see his account when he came in to make a deposit. (!!??)
So, this is just one more dot in the long line of dots that, when connected, allow government to erode and corrode the Fourth Amendment when it comes to the unalienable right to privacy in our persons and papers.
It’s pretty easy. The gang members figured it out long ago. You buy burners. You make one call. You toss it. Open the next burner. Make call. Toss it.
Or you take the chip and/or battery out of your cell. There are always ways around jackboot tactics.
Bears repeating!
Part of this rests on the claim that we, the freeborn citizens of the “land of the (used to be) free”, don’t “enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy” when we use our cell phones.
In U.S. v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976), the Supreme Court ruled that we don’t have privacy in banking because he knows that the teller could see his account when he came in to make a deposit. (!!??)
So, this is just one more dot in the long line of dots that, when connected, allow government to erode and corrode the Fourth Amendment when it comes to the unalienable right to privacy in our persons and papers.
Same here when I criticized the Bush-Ashcroft USA Patriot Act. I never thought I’d see warrantless “sneak and peek” search laws or “know your customer” banking laws cheered on by anyone claiming to be conservative and posting here...but the majority here supported these measures as they did the ones in question here.(see sec.V) and attacked anyone who questioned the Great Oz, er Bush.
Privacy only matters when it comes to killing babies by the millions.
“Practically? Anyone who believes that in practice no privacy exists is an idiot.”
Yes. You do know the difference between the way you’d have the world work and the way it does work, correct? For instance, there’s the 4th amendment and the then there’s the practical world of law enforcement.
That reminds me of the way I heard someone handle telemarketers:
“Hey, I’m kinda busy right now, can I have your home phone number and call you back when it’s convenient? No? Why not? You don’t want me calling you at home?”
Huh? That doesn't seem very likely. I have seen no ruling establishing such a precedent. Do you have a case or state? I would be interested in reading the judges opinion.
Cellphone evidence may be easily rebutted by either prosecution or defense, but it would be unlikely that a judge would "rule it inadmissible". Its evidentiary value would be something left for the jury to weigh, not the judge, FWIW.
I doubt we could expect them to do this in such a way to where our privacy is respected/protected.
Any day now, I’m SURE 0lberwoman will have a rant on his show about how 0bama is listening in on the phone calls of all Americans..... /not
You shouldn't have anything to hide if you've done nothing wrong. /sarc
I think GPS locations of all politicians should be published via twitter or something like that every 10 minutes.
While they are at it, given today's technology, we can record every word they say and post it on the internet daily as well.
Weekly drug testing of all congresscritters with results posted immediately on the internet should be implemented as well.
“Anyone who believes that in practice no privacy exists is an idiot.”
Oh, and just for the record, do I think NO privacy exists? Of course not. Heck, there’s even privacy in the middle of a public square, if no one happens to be listening.
“Wow, it IS easy to put up bovine scat in place of a real argument.”
What’s funny is how you call my argument bull**** when all I was doing was agreeing with you concerning “Obama’s ‘no expectation of privacy’ rationale”.
Did you just tell me that law enforcement should not be restrained by the US Constitution because of ‘practiality’? I think you did...
It is that exact attitude that has caused Freedom and Liberty to wither in this country. I had better stop here because I would get banned if I really tell you what I think.
Well, that's not exactly what the court held. The court said, correctly, that negotiable instruments are inherently not confidential, hence the "negotiable" part.
You can't write a check to someone and then claim that check is privileged or confidential. That check is a negotiable instrument that could theoretically be endorsed and transferred to any number of people. The signor of the check knows this - or at least they should - when they sign the check, effectively waiving any expectation they might have enjoyed.
I don’t have a cite. It was a criminal case in which the defendant’s cell phone was recorded as traveling between two cities during the period of time a murder occurred in one. The defense attempted to use the cell phone’s whereabouts to show the defendant had left the city before the time of the murder and it was not allowed.
Sorry, that’s all I can remember about it.
I vote for all of those!
But you left off taxpayers having total access to congresscritters banking records, real estate loans, speaking fees, board of directors salaries & perks, and business investments.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.