Seattle suit against warrantless rental inspections

Mandatory Warrantless Rental Inspections Inspire Seattle Lawsuit - Hit & Run : Reason.com - Scott Shackford:

December 5, 2018 - "In an alleged effort to root out slumlords, some cities treat renters as though they don't have any rights, forcing residents to allow government officials in for mandatory warrantless 'inspections' to make sure homes are up to code. The lawyers at the Institute for Justice, a national public interest law firm, have ... filed a class-action complaint against the city of Seattle that attempts to put a stop to its inspection program.

"According to their lawsuit, Seattle launched an inspection program in 2015 that requires landlords to register rental properties with the city. The city then randomly chooses 10 percent of the rental properties to inspect each year. This includes inhabited apartments and houses.....

"In July, according to the lawsuit, a group of renters sharing a home wrote city officials telling them that they do not consent to a search of their property. The owner of the home also wrote to let the city know that she was respecting her tenants' wishes. The city responded that if the landlord refused to let the inspectors in, she faced penalties of $150 a day for the first 10 days, and then $500 a day afterward. Seattle did not even respond to the letter from the tenants.

"The Institute for Justice is now representing both tenants and landlords in these cases to try to stop unwarranted inspections under the city's law, arguing that it violates the privacy provisions of the Washington Constitution....

"The Institute for Justice wants the city to have to show probable cause that there are code violations within somebody's home before it can demand access. The group is asking for Seattle's inspection system to be declared unconstitutional and for an injunction to be put in place stopping warrantless searches without a tenant's consent.

"This suit has been filed under Washington's Constitution rather than under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because the state has additional privacy protections that are a little broader.... It was actually under Washington's Constitution in 2016 that another group of property-rights-protecting lawyers, the Pacific Legal Foundation, stopped Seattle from snooping through people's trash to make sure they were separating out their food waste."

Read more: https://reason.com/blog/2018/12/05/mandatory-warrantless-rental-inspections
'via Blog this'

Brett Kavanaugh and due process

The Constitutional Reasons to Oppose Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court - Foundation for Economic Education - Brittany Hunter:

October 1, 2018 - "After two days of political theater, the Senate Judiciary Committee agreed to delay the vote to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court for a week. In that time, the FBI will conduct an investigation surrounding the allegations made against him.... And the real losers, unfortunately, are the American people, who are being diligently distracted from Kavanaugh’s actual policy record.

"To be sure, claims of sexual misconduct should certainly be brought to the public’s attention, especially when they involve a nominee for a position as powerful as a Supreme Court Justice. And in the #metoo era, failing to take these allegations seriously would be most unwise. But losing ourselves in this political circus and the subsequent media frenzy surrounding Kavanaugh’s sexual past glosses over another aspect of his professional career that should concern every single individual: his promotion of the national security state....

"The years of 2001-2003 were ... the years that Brett Kavanaugh served as associate White House Counsel for then-President George W. Bush.... One of the most egregious acts perpetrated against the American people at this time was the PATRIOT Act. And one of its greatest supporters was Brett Kavanaugh [who] referred to the PATRIOT Act as a 'measured, careful, responsible, and constitutional approach' in an email sent to a colleague....

"The PATRIOT Act obliterated the Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights to privacy and due process by giving the federal government sweeping new powers to conduct surveillance on the American people.... But [Kavanaugh's] support of the legislation that signaled the downfall of American rule of law does not simply end with his favorable comments. Kavanaugh was also one of the individuals tasked with its drafting....

"The 2013 Edward Snowden leaks were arguably one of the most significant events to occur over the last decade.... In many ways, the Snowden situation drew a line in the political sand. Those who stood for freedom believed in the people’s inherent right to privacy and in upholding the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.... However, in a ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Kavanaugh ruled that 'the Government’s metadata collection program is entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment.' He also later stated that 'that critical national security need outweighs the impact on privacy occasioned by this program'....

"Due process is a staple of our American legal system. And ... there is more to due process than allowing Judge Kavanaugh to have his day in court. If the government would like to gain access to the private communications of American citizens, it must do so by going to a judge and obtaining a warrant. This warrant must specifically state what property is being searched and what is being searched for, as is specified by the Fourth Amendment.

"Requiring law enforcement to go through the proper channels to secure a warrant before violating the privacy of American citizens is part of due process..... [D]ue process is not meant for one class of people; it is meant for every American citizen whether they are nominated for the Supreme Court like Kavanaugh, or happen to have a radicalized parent like sixteen-year-old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was targeted and killed by the U.S. Military without any semblance of due process."

Read more: https://fee.org/articles/the-constitutional-reasons-to-oppose-kavanaugh-for-the-supreme-court/
'via Blog this'

See also : Libertarian makes SCOTUS case for Kavanagh

Libertarians request pardon for Ross Ulbricht

Libertarian Party Urges Trump to Pardon Silk Road Founder Ross Ulbricht - CCN:

July 10,2017 - "The Libertarian Party has requested [that] President Trump grant a full pardon to Ross Ulbricht, who is serving a [double] life sentence with no parole possibility for his role in launching and operating the Silk Road website, which facilitated illegal drug trading. The party passed a resolution urging the pardon at its annual convention on July 3.

"On June 28, the U.S. Supreme Court ... denied Ulbricht’s petition for writ of certiorari, which prevents him from appealing his sentence before the court.

"'We’re opposed to the drug war in all of its forms,' Richard Fields, the press secretary of the party’s national committee, told CCN.com. 'Ultimately, that’s what Ulbricht was convicted for'.... Ulbricht’s attorneys indicated the prosecution withheld evidence that DEA agents involved in Ulbricht’s apprehension were convicted of malfeasance, Fields further noted.

"Just recently, the Supreme Court ruled in Carpenter v. United States setting a precedent that warrantless search of Ulbricht’s Internet traffic would not have been allowed had the case been decided prior to his trial, he added. That alone should be grounds for a pardon.

"Darryl Perry, chair of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire, presented the pardon resolution at the party’s recent convention. An attendee noted that because Ulbricht’s appeal to the Supreme Court was denied the previous week, his only hope of walking out of prison a free man is via a pardon.

"'We need to send a clear message now, and in two years, and in two more years we need to keep sending this message that we have a political prisoner who is serving two life sentences plus 40 years for the crime of running a website, being a libertarian and being unapologetic about doing those two things,' an attendee commented prior to the vote on the resolution, according to a YouTube video of the proceedings. The convention unanimously passed the resolution....

"Ulbricht claimed his Fourth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated during both the investigation and the sentencing. He also claimed law enforcement officials gathered Internet traffic information without a required warrant during the investigation. He further claimed the judge issued an unreasonable sentence that was partly based on allegations he tried to hire a hit man, for which he was never even charged.

"Amicus curia briefs were filed by 20 organizations supporting Ulbricht’s petition. Supporters included the Reason Foundation, a libertarian organization, as well as the National Lawyers Guild and the Gun Owners of America.

"Thomas Knapp, director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism, noted on the organization’s website that Ulbricht’s trial was unfair since the defense was not provided information on the government’s investigative methods nor allowed to provide an alternative view about the identity of the Silk Road operator known as 'Dread Pirate Roberts.' Nor could the defense bring up the fact that two government agents investigating Silk Road were imprisoned for their corrupt activities."

Read more: https://www.ccn.com/libertarian-party-urges-trump-to-pardon-silk-board-founder-ross-ulbricht/
'via Blog this'

Warrant needed for cell location info, SCOTUS rules

Carpenter v. United States Decision Strengthens Digital Privacy | WIRED - Louise Matsakis:

June 22, 2018 - "In a highly anticipated decision released [June 22], the US Supreme Court ... decided in Carpenter v. United States that the government generally needs a warrant in order to access cell site location information [CSLI], which is automatically generated whenever a mobile phone connects to a cell tower and is stored by wireless carriers for years....

"'We decline to grant the state unrestricted access to a wireless carrier’s database of physical location information,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. 'In light of the deeply revealing nature of CSLI, its depth, breadth, and comprehensive reach, and the inescapable and automatic nature of its collection, the fact that such information is gathered by a third party does not make it any less deserving of Fourth Amendment protection.'

"Roberts was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented....

"At issue was an antiquated legal principle called the third-party doctrine, which ... comes from United States v. Miller, a 1976 case in which the court ruled that law enforcement doesn't need a warrant in order to access bank records because 'the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party.' Three years later, in 1979, the court ruled ... that the third-party doctrine also extends to call records collected by phone companies.

"But on Friday, the Supreme Court said that cell site location information is a 'qualitatively different category” of information. CSLI allows law enforcement to paint a nearly complete picture of Americans' movements. Last year, AT&T and Verizon jointly received nearly 125,000 requests from law enforcement for CSLI data, according to their transparency reports. Law enforcement officials will now only be able to make such requests after obtaining a warrant, which will require them to demonstrate probable cause....

"The court declined to decide on whether law enforcement seeking a smaller window of records — fewer than seven days ... constitutes a Fourth Amendment search. The opinion also allows for exceptions for emergencies, like 'bomb threats, active shootings, and child abductions.'

"Carpenter v. United States began in December of 2010, when a series of robberies hit Michigan and neighboring Ohio.... Timothy Carpenter, who was later convicted of committing several of the robberies and sentenced to 116 years in prison ... argued that obtaining the records constituted a Fourth Amendment search, and therefore the police should have needed a warrant. His motion was denied, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals later upheld the case. The Supreme Court agreed to hear it last year....

"Fourteen of the largest US tech companies — including Google, Apple, Facebook, and Microsoft — filed a brief in support of updating the Fourth Amendment for the digital era. It was technically not filed in support of either party, but largely backed Carpenter's position. The cohort even included Verizon, which cooperated with the National Security Agency as part of its broad bulk surveillance programs for years."

Read more: https://www.wired.com/story/carpenter-v-united-states-supreme-court-digital-privacy/
'via Blog this'

Obama guts 4th Amendment on way out

President Obama's Parting Shot at Personal Freedom - Reason.com - Andrew Napolitano:

January 19, 2017 - "On Jan. 3, outgoing Attorney General Loretta Lynch secretly signed an order directing the National Security Agency — America's 60,000-person-strong domestic spying apparatus — to make available raw spying data to all other federal intelligence agencies, which then can pass it on to their counterparts in foreign countries and in the 50 states.... Yet in doing this, she violated basic constitutional principles that were erected centuries ago to prevent just what she did.

"Here is the back story.

"In the aftermath of former President Richard Nixon's abusive utilization of the FBI and CIA to spy on his domestic political opponents in the 1960s and '70s ... Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which created a secret court that was charged with being the sole authority in America that can authorize domestic spying.... The standard for a FISA court authorization was that the subject of the spying needed to be a foreign person in the United States who was an agent of a foreign power....

"The Patriot Act permitted FBI agents to write their own search warrants for business records (including medical, legal, postal and banking records), and amendments to FISA itself changed the wording from probable cause 'of foreign agency' to probable cause of being 'a foreign person' to all Americans who may 'communicate with a foreign person.'

"The recent USA Freedom Act permits the NSA to ask the FISA court for a search warrant for any person — named or unnamed — based on the standard of 'governmental need.' One FISA court-issued warrant I saw authorized the surveillance of all 115 million domestic customers of Verizon.... The NSA can use data from your cellphone to learn where you are, and it can utilize your cellphone as a listening device to hear your in-person conversations, even if you have turned it off....

"Notwithstanding all of the above gross violations of personal liberty and constitutional norms, the NSA traditionally kept its data ... to itself. So if an agency such as the FBI or the DEA or the New Jersey State Police, for example, wanted any of the data acquired by the NSA for law enforcement purposes, it needed to get a search warrant from a federal judge based on the constitutional standard of 'probable cause of crime.'

"Until now. Now, because of the Lynch secret order, revealed by The New York Times late last week, the NSA may share any of its data with any other intelligence agency or law enforcement agency that has an intelligence arm based on ... the non-standard of governmental need.....

"Obama, in the death throes of his time in the White House, has delivered perhaps his harshest blow to constitutional freedom by permitting his attorney general to circumvent the Fourth Amendment, thereby enabling people in law enforcement to get whatever they want about whomever they wish without a showing of probable cause of crime as the Fourth Amendment requires. That amendment expressly forbids the use of general warrants — search where you wish and seize what you find — and they had never been a lawful tool of [American] law enforcement until Lynch's order."

Read more: http://reason.com/archives/2017/01/19/a-parting-shot-at-personal-freedom
'via Blog this'

Paul vs. Christie in the first Republican debate

Rand Paul and Chris Christie Clash on NSA Spying in the Republican Debate - The Atlantic - Conor Friedersdorf:

August 7, 2015 - "One of the biggest clashes in the Republican debate Thursday night came after New Jersey Governor Chris Christie was asked about his past attacks on Senator Rand Paul. The two men disagree about an NSA program that spied on tens of millions of innocent Americans by logging all phone calls they dialed and received. Paul, a leading critic of the phone dragnet, has argued that it flagrantly violates the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures....

“'Do you really believe you can assign blame to Senator Paul just for opposing the bulk collection of people's phone records in the event of a terrorist attack?” a moderator asked Thursday.... 'Yes, I do,' [Christie] said. 'And I'll tell you why: because I'm the only person on this stage who's actually filed applications under the Patriot Act, who has gone before the Foreign Intelligence Service court, who has prosecuted, investigated, and jailed terrorists in this country after September 11th.... And I will make no apologies, ever, for protecting the lives and safety of the American people. We have to give more tools to our folks to be able to do that, not fewer, and then trust those people and oversee them to do it the right way.' In fact, the phone dragnet has never stopped a single terrorist attack, during Chris Christie’s tenure as a U.S. attorney or at any other time....

"Paul responded to Thursday’s attack by expressing his preference for targeted surveillance rather than an expansive dragnet that sweeps up everyone’s metadata. 'I want to collect more records from terrorists, but less records from innocent Americans,” he said. 'The Fourth Amendment was what we fought the Revolution over! John Adams said it was the spark that led to our war for independence. I'm proud of standing for the Bill of Rights. I will continue to stand for the Bill of Rights.'

"Christie was ready with a retort.... 'You know, that's a completely ridiculous answer: "I want to "collect more records from terrorists, but less records from other people." How are you supposed to know?' 'Get a warrant!' Paul said. 'Get a judge to sign the warrant!'

“Listen, Senator, you know, when you're sitting in a subcommittee, just blowing hot air about this, you can say things like that,' he said. 'When you're responsible for protecting the lives of the American people, then what you need to do is to make sure –– to make sure that you use the system the way that it’s supposed to work.'

"In fact, 'get a judge to sign a warrant' is a rather succinct description of how 'the system' is 'supposed to work,' if we define 'the system' as the Constitution rather than national-security officials following their gut instincts. It’s hardly 'blowing hot air' for a senator to call on the executive branch to follow the law....

"On Fox News after the debate, a couple of commentators suggested that Christie won his exchange with Paul. I cannot comment on the style preferences of a GOP voter base that presently prefers Donald Trump to all other candidates. But on substance, Paul easily bested Christie in this exchange.... Christie seems oblivious to the basic logic of the Bill of Rights. The constraints it places on government are not suspended in the aftermath of a terrorist attack –– they are, in fact, most important precisely when a polity is panicked and officials are unusually able to seize excessive power without criticism. His praise for leaders unapologetically jettisoning such constraints in the name of protecting us is more dangerous than any terrorist plot in U.S. history."

Read more: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/rand-paul-and-chris-christie-clash-on-nsa-spying/400718/
'via Blog this'

Warrantless cell phone searches unconstitutional, says SCOTUS

Cops Can’t Search Cell Phones Without a Warrant, Supreme Court Rules | Threat Level | WIRED - Andy Greenberg:

June 25, 2014 - "After years of legal debate, the Supreme Court has told the cops to keep their hands off Americans’ cell phones – at least until they get a search warrant.

"The court released a landmark decision Wednesday morning in the case of Riley vs. California, forbidding warrantless police searches of the contents of arrestees’ cell phones. The ruling opinion notes that cell phones have in fact become tiny computers in Americans’ pockets teeming with highly private data, and that gaining access to them is now fundamentally different from rifling through someone’s pockets or purse. 'A decade ago officers might have occasionally stumbled across a highly personal item such as a diary, but today many of the more than 90% of American adults who own cell phones keep on their person a digital record of nearly every aspect of their lives,' the opinion reads....

"Two cases brought the issue of warrantless cell phone searches to the Supreme Court’s attention. In one, a California man was charged with assault and attempted murder in relation to a street gang in which he was allegedly a member. Cops searched his smartphone without a warrant and found videos and photos that prosecutors argued linked him to the 'Bloods' gang. In the second case, a Boston man had his cell phone searched when he was arrested after an apparent drug sale. By finding his home address on his flip phone, police were able search his home and find a larger stash of drugs. Both defendants argued that the warrantless searches violated the fourth amendment.

"Wednesday’s ruling sides with both defendants and declares the searches in their cases unconstitutional."

Read more: http://www.wired.com/2014/06/supreme-court-rules-cops-cant-search-cell-phones-without-a-warrant/
'via Blog this'

Read case:  http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Riley_v_California_No_13132_and_13212_US_June_25_2014_Court_Opini

Rand Paul: We must defend the rights of all

Rand Paul’s Starkly Libertarian CPAC Speech: We Must Defend the Rights of All | Mediaite - Andrew Kirell:

March 7, 2014 - "In his address before the Conservative Political Action Conference on Friday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) took a decidedly libertarian stance on issues of surveillance, the Fourth Amendment, executive overreach, and wrongful imprisonment.

"'We won’t trade our liberty for security,' Paul said, setting the overarching theme of the speech: 'Not now, not ever.'

He railed against the National Security Agency’s controversial phone metadata collection, telling the crowd: 'If you have a cell phone, you are under surveillance. I believe what you do on your cell phone is none of their damn business.'

"'There is a great battle going on, it’s for the heart and soul of America,' he urged to the crowd. 'The Fourth Amendment is equally as important as the Second Amendment, and conservatives cannot forget this.

"At another point, Sen. Paul quoted Pink Floyd’s 'Wish You Were Here' to attack President Obama‘s equivocating on civil liberties issues.

"He also emphasized to the audience that any minority of thought, color, creed, [or] religion should presume that government would attempt to imprison them wrongfully."

Read more: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rand-pauls-starkly-libertarian-cpac-speech-we-must-defend-the-rights-of-all/
'via Blog this'

Rand Paul, FreedomWorks sue NSA for 4th Amendment violations

Libertarian Paul sues Obama and his security chiefs for Fourth Amendment violations - Euronews:

February 12, 2014 - "Maverick US Republican senator Rand Paul is suing President Obama and the directors of National Intelligence, the NSA and the FBI for violating the Fourth Amendment.

"In the latest fallout from the Snowden leaks, which exposed illegal government snooping, Paul is joining with the Tea Party-aligned FreedomWorks group.

"'Good morning, on behalf of myself, FreedomWorks and everyone in America that has a phone, we are filing suit against the President of the United States, in defence of the Fourth Amendment. We will ask the question in court whether a single warrant can apply to the records of every American phone user all of the time, without limits, without individualisation,' he said.

"Paul, a libertarian, is confident the case will go all the way to the Supreme Court. The Fourth Amendment is designed to protect Americans from unreasonable searches, something Paul says Obama has publically refused to stop."

Read more: http://www.euronews.com/2014/02/12/libertarian-paul-sues-obama-and-his-security-chiefs-for-fourth-amendment-/

Gary Johnson: 'This Independence Day feels different'

Libertarian Gary Johnson: 'this Independence Day feels different' - Washington Times - Jennifer Thompson:

"Former Libertarian presidential hopeful Gary Johnson ... is not delivering the typical feel-good Fourth of July message this year.

"'This Independence Day feels a little different,' he says. 'The news in recent weeks about the IRS using its force against certain targeted groups has reminded us that, absent vigilance on our part, the government will abuse the power it has accumulated. Likewise, as we learn more about the massive surveillance being conducted by the NSA and the FBI, a lot of Americans are today thinking and talking about the 4th Amendment and its intended protections against unreasonable searches....

"'These "revelations" are bringing long-overdue attention to the liberties the Founding Fathers worked so hard and sacrificed so much to provide and protect. It is more than a little ironic that the Revolution was prompted, in part, by abusive tax policies and unreasonable searches - on the part of ‘tyrants’.'"

"Mr. Johnson is ... chairman of Our America Initiative, a grassroots group centered on smaller government and a frugal mindset. His fellow board members include Barry Goldwater Jr., former independent presidential hopeful Buddy Roemer and Whole Foods co-founder John Mackey.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2013/jul/3/libertarian-gary-johnson-independence-day-feels-di/#ixzz2Y7E5edI8
'via Blog this'

Nelson vs. City of Rochester

Motion For Leave To File And Brief Of Amici Curiae CATO Institute, Reason Foundation, Minnesota Free Market Institute, And Libertarian Law Council In Support Of Petitioners | Nelson v. City of Rochester | Cato Institute - JDSupra:

Dec. 23, 2012 - "Rochester, New York, issued administrative warrants against petitioners’ homes based solely on the fact that a six-year period had expired under the local inspection law. The Fourth Amendment, however, prohibits the issuance of general warrants to search private dwellings. The authorities claim to seek evidence of housing, zoning, or other administrative code violations, of course, but they lack individualized suspicion that any of the renters are engaged in such wrongdoing. Indeed, these home invasions are exactly what the Fourth Amendment was intended to prohibit: In colonial days, the Crown granted British officials general search powers against any home they wished, at any time, for any or no reason. In Rochester, the warrants remain valid for 45 days, permitting multiple entries by city employees and courts are no longer involved after issuing the warrants. These administrative warrants sanction videotaping and photography of the home, which becomes publicly available online."

Read more: http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/motion-for-leave-to-file-and-brief-of-am-91178/
'via Blog this'

Rand Paul scores libertarian victory; Feinstein-Lee passes Senate

Rand Paul Scores Libertarian Victory, Proves He is One of Us - Jason M. Farrell, PolicyMic:

December 2, 2012 - "Rand Paul’s months of hard work have paid off; the Feinstein-Lee amendment eviscerating that awful NDAA 2012 Section 1021 passed in the Senate 67-29. If this passes the House and the president signs it into law, libertarianism can take pride in a major victory — the law will not permit American citizens to be held indefinitely. The language reads: 'an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States.'

"If not for the persistent yet delicate advocacy of Fourth Amendment principles Rand Paul has advocated in the Senate, U.S. law would still permit the executive branch to indefinitely detain any American citizen suspected of supporting terrorists (which can apparently be proven just by liking a status on Facebook), without charge or trial. Yes, at least for now, politics have actually repealed a small but crucial snippet of state power and pushed us in the direction of liberty. Pinch me, I still can’t believe it."

http://www.policymic.com/articles/19983/rand-paul-scores-libertarian-victory-proves-he-is-one-of-us
'via Blog this'