Diminished expectations of privacy

[Quantum Windbag]

This is why we should not trust the government with safeguarding our rights, they have a conflict of interest.

I highly recommend reading the whole essay.

An arrest is a curious thing. It's the justification for the government to seize a person physically, for agents to stick their hands into places that would land ordinary people in prison. It's sufficient reason put a person in a cell, for a day or two, and deprive him of the ability to go about his routine.

Yet, the presumption of innocence, a phrase given lip service by judges who may not hold it as dear as their words might suggest, would suggest that more is needed before we do all these unpleasant things to people. After all, the only thing needed to arrest someone is a cop's decision to do so, which could be explained by his observation of a violent act, or his desire for some overtime, or his use of power to teach someone a bit too mouthy for his tastes that he can make their life miserable whenever he wants. The latter is wrong, but there's no penalty for being wrong. Not really.

But in United States v. Mitchell, the Third Circuit held otherwise. From the WSJ Law Blog: In 2009, Pennsylvania federal judge David Cercone ruled that the collection of DNA from someone not convicted of a crime would constitute an unreasonable search and seizure, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. DNA samples, Cercone reasoned, carry much more private information about a person than a mere fingerprint.
But in an 8-6 ruling, the 3rd Circuit reversed, holding that people arrested have “a diminished expectation of privacy in their identities.” Those privacy interests, the court concluded, were outweighed by the need for law enforcement to correctly identify people who are charged with crimes, determine their criminal history, potentially link them to unsolved crimes and promptly rule out involvement in a crime in cases in which the DNA does not match that found at the scene, the Post-Gazette reports.

Simple Justice: Diminished Expectations (of Privacy)

 

[waltky]

Supreme Court to hear 4th amendment privacy case...

Can right to privacy bar a strip search in jail? Supreme Court hears case.
October 12, 2011 - A motorist jailed for a minor offense in 2005 says two New Jersey jails violated his privacy rights by subjecting him to a strip search. The jails told the Supreme Court that security justifies the practice.

Members of the US Supreme Court were asked on Wednesday to declare for the first time that Americans’ constitutional right to privacy prohibits a strip search if they are sent to jail for a minor offense. In an important case exploring the scope of Fourth Amendment privacy rights, the justices must decide whether two New Jersey jails violated the rights of a motorist detained in 2005 for a minor infraction. The motorist was twice ordered to remove his clothing to facilitate close inspection of the most private parts of his body. “This is a very significant intrusion on individual privacy and individual dignity,” Thomas Goldstein, a lawyer for the motorist, told the justices.

Mr. Goldstein urged the high court to find that strip searches of those accused of relatively minor offenses must first be justified by a reasonable, individualized suspicion that the person was concealing a weapon or contraband. No discernible five-member voting bloc among the justices emerged during the hour-long argument. Washington lawyer Carter Phillips, representing the jails, said detainees in a jail enjoy no reasonable expectation of privacy against being viewed while naked in a shower. He said similar visual observations by jail guards during the detainee intake process also do not violate Fourth Amendment privacy protections.

The justices explored the many gradations of strip searches. The most intrusive involves a physical check to ensure no contraband is concealed in a body cavity. That check requires individualized suspicion, Mr. Phillips said. But the case of the two jails and the motorist involved no physical contact, only visual inspection. "So the issue is how close the guard can be to an individual in a single strip search,” Chief Justice John Roberts asked. “Is that all the case comes down to?”

The case stems from a traffic stop by a New Jersey state trooper on March 3, 2005. Albert Florence, the finance director for a car dealership, was riding with his wife and three children in the family’s BMW. The officer arrested Mr. Florence for an outstanding warrant issued in Essex County. The warrant had been issued several years earlier for civil contempt, because Florence had failed to promptly pay a fine. Once he paid the fine, a judge issued a document verifying that the judgment had been satisfied. Florence carried the order in his car to avoid being rearrested by police.

MORE

 

[editec]

Modern life is a goldfish bowl.

Online, our privacy is violated six ways from Sunday every day by commercial interests.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Modern life is a goldfish bowl.

Online, our privacy is violated six ways from Sunday every day by commercial interests.

Mine isn't.