On Tuesday a federal appeals court ruled that police do not need a warrant to obtain historical location data from cellphone companies because the Fourth Amendment does not protect such information. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit concluded that the Supreme Court's "third party doctrine," which holds that people have no reasonable expectation of privacy in information they voluntarily disclose to others, applies to cellphone geolocation data, despite the wealth of personal details they can reveal. That means such records have only as much protection as Congress or state legislatures choose to provide. The 5th Circuit's decision comes less than two weeks after the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled, based on the privacy clause of that state's constitution, that police generally do need a warrant to obtain cellphone location data. This is the first time a federal appeals court has squarely addressed the issue.
That rate is much lower than the numbers used in the horrifying projections that shaped the government response to the epidemic.
The Clemson psychology lecturer and 1996 Libertarian vice presidential candidate got 51 percent on the fourth ballot.
Prosecutors Back Dismissal of 91 More Cases Involving the Houston Cop Who Lied to Justify a Deadly Drug Raid
The announcement brings the total number of suspect cases initiated by Gerald Goines to 164 over 11 years.
The ruling says the state's top health official exceeded her statutory authority by ordering "nonessential" businesses to close.
Will they keep it in mind even if Joe Biden becomes president?