unreasonable search and seizure

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

  • The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
  • The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
  • The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
  • The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
  • The right of every family to a decent home;
  • The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
  • The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
  • The right to a good education.
  • All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.

cnn.com
There is an underground network preparing to hide immigrants
Faith leaders in California don't have hope President Donald Trump won't enter churches or places of worship where immigrants may seek sanctuary. So they are building safe houses and preparing rooms to hide immigrants who fear ICE will deport them.
By Kyung Lah, Alberto Moya and Mallory Simon, CNN

A hammer pounds away in the living room of a middle class home. A sanding machine smoothes the grain of the wood floor in the dining room.

But this home Pastor Ada Valiente is showing off in Los Angeles, with its refurbished floors, is no ordinary home.

“It would be three families we host here,” Valiente says.

By “host,” she means provide refuge to people who may be sought by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE. The families staying here would be undocumented immigrants, fearing an ICE raid and possible deportation.

The purchase of this home is part of a network formed by Los Angeles religious leaders across faiths in the wake of Donald Trump’s election. The intent is to shelter hundreds, possibly thousands of undocumented people in safe houses across Southern California.

The goal is to offer another sanctuary beyond religious buildings or schools, ones that require federal authorities to obtain warrants before entering the homes.

“That’s what we need to do as a community to keep families together,” Valiente says.

At another Los Angeles neighborhood miles away, a Jewish man shows off a sparsely decorated spare bedroom in his home. White sheets on the bed and the clean, adjacent full bathroom bear all the markers of an impending visit. The man, who asked not to be identified, pictures an undocumented woman and her children who may find refuge in his home someday.

The man says he’s never been in trouble before and has difficulty picturing that moment. But he’s well educated and understands the Fourth Amendment, which gives people the right to be secure in their homes, against unreasonable searches and seizures. He’s pictured the moment if ICE were to knock on his door.

“I definitely won’t let them in. That’s our legal right,” he says. “If they have a warrant, then they can come in. I can imagine that could be scary, but I feel the consequences of being passive in this moment is a little scary.”

So, you’ve been approached by a police officer, or two, and you have a little (or a lot) of bud on you.
What now?

Here are 5 things to remember as a cannabis user when dealing with the police:

1. Check your state laws. Is cannabis legalized for adult use or medicinally? Are you eligible to benefit? What are the maximum amounts of plants, dried flowers, and concentrate you can have? Make sure you know the current laws in your area. If you’re a medical patient, make sure to have an ID card with you and quick access to verification.

2. Beware baggies. Authority figures tend to look at baggies as an intent to sell. Try keeping your flowers in a prescription bottle, air tight jar or box instead.

3. Remember your rights! Unfortunately, in all states but California and Arizona, the smell of weed can be used as probable cause to search your car and personhood. However, according to the Fourth Amendment, you are protected from unreasonable search and seizure unless there is probable cause or a warrant. It’s important to let the officer know you do not consent to a search, even if they do so anyway.

4. Be quiet!

Outside of your name and address you are not obligated to talk to the police. The more information you give the more chances you have of saying something that might incriminate yourself. According to the Fifth Amendment you have the right to remain silent. Here are some good phrases and questions to use if stopped by the police:

 “Why did you pull me over?” 

“I’m not discussing my day.”

 “Am I being detained or am I free to go?”

 “I’m going to remain silent. I want a lawyer.” 

 5. Be nice! A calm attitude can turn a potentially nerve wracking situation with the police into a quick and uneventful one.

REMEMBER. Although cannabis is federally illegal, local and state police cannot turn you over to the feds if you are possessing, cultivating or transporting within the legal parameters of your state.

Stay safe, stay educated and stay elevated.

cnn.com
There is an underground network readying homes to hide undocumented immigrants
Faith leaders in California don't have hope President Donald Trump won't enter churches or places of worship where immigrants may seek sanctuary. So they are building safe houses and preparing rooms to hide immigrants who fear ICE will deport them.
By Kyung Lah, Alberto Moya and Mallory Simon, CNN

“A hammer pounds away in the living room of a middle class home. A sanding machine smoothes the grain of the wood floor in the dining room.

But this home Pastor Ada Valiente is showing off in Los Angeles, with its refurbished floors, is no ordinary home.“It would be three families we host here,” Valiente says.By “host,” she means provide refuge to people who may be sought by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE. The families staying here would be undocumented immigrants, fearing an ICE raid and possible deportation.

The purchase of this home is part of a network formed by Los Angeles religious leaders across faiths in the wake of Donald Trump’s election. The intent is to shelter hundreds, possibly thousands of undocumented people in safe houses across Southern California.

Workers rush to finish flooring for homes meant to hide immigrants.The goal is to offer another sanctuary beyond religious buildings or schools, ones that require federal authorities to obtain warrants before entering the homes.“That’s what we need to do as a community to keep families together,” Valiente says.

At another Los Angeles neighborhood miles away, a Jewish man shows off a sparsely decorated spare bedroom in his home. White sheets on the bed and the clean, adjacent full bathroom bear all the markers of an impending visit. The man, who asked not to be identified, pictures an undocumented woman and her children who may find refuge in his home someday.The man says he’s never been in trouble before and has difficulty picturing that moment. But he’s well educated and understands the Fourth Amendment, which gives people the right to be secure in their homes, against unreasonable searches and seizures. He’s pictured the moment if ICE were to knock on his door.“I definitely won’t let them in. That’s our legal right,” he says. “If they have a warrant, then they can come in. I can imagine that could be scary, but I feel the consequences of being passive in this moment is a little scary.”

Read the full piece here

Can US Customs and Border officials search your phone?

Recent detentions and seizures of phones and other material from travelers to the United States have sparked alarm. Below, ProPublica details what powers US Customs and Border Protection officials have over you and your devices.

A NASA scientist heading home to the US said he was detained in January at a Houston airport, where US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers pressured him for access to his work phone and its potentially sensitive contents. Last month, CBP agents checked the identification of passengers leaving a domestic flight at New York’s John F. Kennedy Airport during a search for an immigrant with a deportation order. And in October, border agents seized phones and other work-related material from a Canadian photojournalist. They blocked him from entering the US after he refused to unlock the phones, citing his obligation to protect his sources. These and other recent incidents have revived confusion and alarm over what powers border officials actually have and, perhaps more importantly, how to know when they are overstepping their authority.

The unsettling fact is that border officials have long had broad powers — many people just don’t know about them. Border officials, for instance, have search powers that extend 100 air miles inland from any external boundary of the US. That means border agents can stop and question people at fixed checkpoints dozens of miles from US borders. They can also pull over motorists whom they suspect of a crime as part of “roving” border patrol operations.

Sowing even more uneasiness, ambiguity around the agency’s search powers — especially over electronic devices — has persisted for years as courts nationwide address legal challenges raised by travelers, privacy advocates and civil-rights groups. We dug out answers about the current state-of-play when it comes to border searches, along with links to more detailed resources (below).

Original post on the TED-Ed Blog. Click below to read further!

Keep reading

THE BILL OF RIGHTS, EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 15, 1791

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

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.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

I’m still the same old me, that’s all I’ll ever be

Supernatural 12x17, “The British Invasion,” and 12x18, “The Memory Remains.”

Two episodes about legacies, two episodes about how our actions can shape the future. Two episodes about making connections and breaking them. And irony. Don’t forget the irony. That’s key!

Keep reading

theguardian.com
Accused of underpaying women, Google says it's too expensive to get wage data

In that interview in April, regional solicitor Janet Herold said that the initial data suggested that discrimination against women in Google is quite extreme, even in this industry.
As a federal contractor, Google is required to comply with equal opportunity laws and allow investigators to review records.
Google is one of three powerful Silicon Valley firms to face DoL lawsuits related to discrimination claims over the last year.
The DoL first publicly accused Google of systemic compensation disparities during a hearing in April, saying a preliminary inquiry had found that the Mountain View tech firm underpays women across positions.
Google has also argued that the DoLs data request would violate the privacy of employees and fourth amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure.


I am a bot written by a Mathematician

Posted at Sat May 27 04:30:24 2017

usatoday.com
BREAKING: House passes bill to keep government from reading old emails
The House voted Wednesday to overhaul a 30-year-old electronic privacy law to prevent government agents from reading Americans' old emails without a warrant.

WASHINGTON — The House voted unanimously Wednesday to overhaul a 30-year-old electronic privacy law to prevent government agents from reading Americans’ old emails without a warrant.

House members voted 419-0 to pass the bipartisan Email Privacy Act, which requires government agents to get a warrant before they can gain access to Americans’ email, texts, photos, videos and other electronic communication, regardless of how old the data is.

Local, state and federal police agencies currently have the authority under the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act to peruse emails at will if the communication is at least six months old. Critics say that law, written before email was commonly used, violates Americans’ constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

“The last time we updated these laws, I was flipping burgers at McDonald’s,” said House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis. “So clearly this is long overdue. The principle here is important: our Fourth Amendment rights should apply to our emails. This bill does that without impeding law enforcement’s ability to do its job.”

Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo., the bill’s lead sponsor along with Rep. Kevin Yoder, R-Kan., said the legislation is “a major step forward to protect our civil liberties.”

“Citizens should no longer be at risk of having their emails warrantlessly searched by government agencies,” Polis said.

Yoder said it is one of the few pieces of legislation that has attracted support from ideologically diverse groups, ranging from the liberal American Civil Liberties Union to the conservative Heritage Action for America.

“I’m heartened by the fact that groups on the left, right and in the center have come together to say we’re going to fix this,” Yoder said.

The bill still must be taken up by the Senate, where it has been introduced by Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Mike Lee, R-Utah.

The House bill had 314 co-sponsors, the highest number of any bill to come before this session of Congress. Ryan brought it to the floor quickly after it was passed unanimously two weeks ago by the House Judiciary Committee.

The bill was amended in committee so that law enforcement officials do not have to notify citizens when they serve a warrant on someone’s email provider to get access to a person’s communications. Companies that provide email service can notify their customers about the warrant except when a court determines that tipping someone off could result in a serious crime or terrorist act being committed.

That provision was a compromise sought by Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., at the request of law enforcement officials. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., said he preferred the bill’s original language, which would have required police agencies to notify people when they obtained warrants to read their emails.

“Contrary to practice thirty years ago, today vast amounts of private, sensitive information are transmitted and stored electronically,” Goodlatte said. “But this information may also contain evidence of a crime and law enforcement agencies are increasingly dependent upon stored communications content and records in their investigations.”

Privacy and civil liberties advocates said Congress is just now moving into the 21st century on digital privacy issues.

“Most Americans would be shocked to learn that the federal government can access and read emails that are more than 180 days old,” said Adam Brandon, CEO of FreedomWorks, a libertarian-leaning group. “That’s because Congress hasn’t kept up with the rapid changes in technology.”

The tech industry said the legislation is especially important now that more and more of Americans’ electronic communication is stored in the “cloud” network of servers.

“For consumers to feel safe with cloud computing, personal data stored remotely must have the same legal protection as data on their own computer,” said Mark MacCarthy, senior vice president of public policy for the Software and Information Industry Association. “House passage of (the bill) brings us one step closer to leveling the playing field for government access to data stored in the cloud.”

Our Rights and Freedoms Threatened by Bill C51

Below are Sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which Bill C51 threatens.

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
© freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
(a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
(b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and
© to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right
(a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;
(b) to be tried within a reasonable time;
© not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;
(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;
(e) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause;
(f) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment;
(g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations;
(h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again; and
(i) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser punishment.

12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.

52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.

38. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by
(a) resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and
(b) resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces.

Will They Need A Search Warrant For Your Brain?

by Carrie Peyton Dahlberg, Inside Science

Brain imaging can already pull bits of information from the minds of willing volunteers in laboratories. What happens when police or lawyers want to use it to pry a key fact from the mind of an unwilling person?

Will your brain be protected under the Fourth Amendment from unreasonable search and seizure?  

Or will your brain have a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination?

“These are issues the United States Supreme Court is going to have to resolve,” said Nita Farahany, a professor of law and philosophy at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, who specializes in bioethical issues.

Keep reading

The Bill Of Rights?

If they can tell you there’s certain things you’re not allowed to say, you don’t have free speech.

If they can tell you there’s only certain places you can protest, only at certain times, and only by special license, you don’t have the freedom to assemble.

If they can tell a journalist they can only cover an event from within a designated area or risk arrest, you don’t have a free press.

If they can tell you there’s certain guns you can only own with a government license, you can only carry in certain places at certain times with a special license, you don’t have the right to bear arms.

If your police use military weapons and military tactics, then you have soldiers quartered among you.

If you can be stopped and frisked because you ‘look suspicious’ or you happen to be near a border zone, if your home can be searched by police and soldiers because the city is under martial law and there’s a supposed terrorist on the loose, you have no right against unreasonable search and seizure.

If you can be tried by military tribunal if you’re designated a terrorist combatant, or be assassinated by drone strike, or be interred and have your property confiscated because of the color of your skin and your ethnic ancestry, you have no right to a fair trial.

If you can be indefinitely detained by the simple expedient of a Patriot Act waver, you don’t have the right to a fair trial or a trial by jury.

If you can be tear gassed, pepper-sprayed, shot with rubber bullets, blasted with LRADs, tased, or outright gunned down in the street for nonviolent offenses and peaceful protest, you have no right to protection from cruel and unusual punishment.

If your government bars you from nonviolent behavior not expressly mentioned in the Constitution, the rule of construction does not apply.

If your State government permits you rights to nonviolent behavior but your federal government prosecutes you for it anyway, your state has no rights.

That’s your Bill of Rights. It’s gone. It’s completely eviscerated and you sit there and tell me we live in a free country? You don’t. You say the Constitution protects you? It doesn’t.

It never did.

Sandra Bland Had Her Fourth Amendment Rights Obliterated By Texas Police

“The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.”

Unless you are a black motorist, then you can be ordered from your car and slammed to the ground for failing to use blinker as courtesy, and subsequently arrested and detained. Then killed.

Supreme Court ruling expands police authority in home searches

The Supreme Court decision, based on a Los Angeles case, says officers may search a residence without a warrant as long as one occupant consents.

Feb. 25 2014

Police officers may enter and search a home without a warrant as long as one occupant consents, even if another resident has previously objected, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in a Los Angeles case.

The 6-3 ruling, triggered by a Los Angeles Police Department arrest in 2009, gives authorities more leeway to search homes without obtaining a warrant, even when there is no emergency.

The majority, led by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., said police need not take the time to get a magistrate’s approval before entering a home in such cases. But dissenters, led by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, warned that the decision would erode protections against warrantless home searches. The court had previously held that such protections were at the “very core” of the 4th Amendment and its ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.

The case began when LAPD officers responded to reports of a street robbery near Venice Boulevard and Magnolia Avenue. They pursued a suspect to an apartment building, heard shouting inside a unit and knocked on the door. Roxanne Rojas opened the door, but her boyfriend, Walter Fernandez, told officers they could not enter without a warrant.

“You don’t have any right to come in here. I know my rights,” Fernandez shouted from inside the apartment, according to court records.

Fernandez was arrested in connection with the street robbery and taken away. An hour later, police returned and searched his apartment, this time with Rojas’ consent. They found a shotgun and gang-related material.

In Tuesday’s decision, the high court said Fernandez did not have the right to prevent the search of his apartment once he was gone and Rojas had consented.

In the past, the court has frowned upon most searches of residences except in the case of an emergency or if the police had a warrant from a judge.

But Alito said police were free to search when they get the consent of the only occupant on site.

“A warrantless consent search is reasonable and thus consistent with the 4th Amendment irrespective of the availability of a warrant,” he said in Fernandez vs. California. “Even with modern technological advances, the warrant procedure imposes burdens on the officers who wish to search [and] the magistrate who must review the warrant application.”

He also said Rojas, who appeared to have been beaten when police first arrived, should have her own right to consent to a search. “Denying someone in Rojas’ position the right to allow the police to enter her home would also show disrespect for her independence,” Alito wrote for the court.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined Ginsburg in dissent and faulted the court for retreating from the warrant rule.

“Instead of adhering to the warrant requirement, today’s decision tells the police they may dodge it,” Ginsburg said.

She noted that in 2006, the court had ruled in a Georgia case that a husband standing in the doorway could block police from searching his home, even if his estranged wife consented. In Tuesday’s opinion, the majority said that rule applied only when the co-owner was “physically present” to object.

The voting lineup seemed to track the court’s ideological divide and its gender split, with male and female justices taking opposite sides. The six men — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Stephen G. Breyer, Anthony M. Kennedy and Alito — voted to uphold Rojas’ consent to the search. The court’s three women would have honored Fernandez’s objection.

Fernandez was later convicted for his role in the street robbery and sentenced to 14 years in prison. After the California Supreme Court upheld his conviction, he appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the search of his apartment.