Cops Say Encryption Hinders Investigations. These Documents Say Otherwise.
Law enforcers have plenty of tools; they just want to paw through our data without effort or expense.
Law enforcers have plenty of tools; they just want to paw through our data without effort or expense.
The FBI provided "no factual basis for the seizure," Judge R. Gary Klausner wrote.
Fourth Amendment advocates win big in Lange v. California.
But the appeals court wasn't having it.
And it's not a moment too soon.
Two states have passed laws requiring court approval before the cops can use genetic genealogy services to track down a suspect.
If this doubly punitive anti-press maneuver sounds familiar, that's because it keeps happening, including to Reason.
"It makes me feel like the government is preying on the vulnerable and the weak to line their own pockets."
Can a cop enter a suspect's home without a warrant if they're in pursuit and have probable cause to believe the suspect has committed a misdemeanor?
Polling shows a sharp partisan divide on the issue, but it also suggests that compromise might be possible.
"When you've done nothing wrong, you shouldn't be subjected to an investigation," says Paul Snitko, whose box was seized in a March 22 FBI raid of a Beverly Hills business.
In a lawsuit, attorneys for the box's owner allege that federal agents conducted an illegal search that may have resulted in the loss of some valuable gold coins.
The Supreme Court declines to hear arguments in Oliva v. Nivar.
The victim will now have no right to argue his case before a jury in civil court.
Cops laugh about “probable cause on four legs” but the damage to innocent lives is real.
George Wingate, who had pulled over on the side of the road to check an engine light, flatly refused to show his ID when a sheriff's deputy demanded it.
How pretextual traffic stops got the judicial stamp of approval.
Police were finally able to catch the serial killer using DNA genealogy databases—violating many innocent people's constitutional right to privacy.
SCOTUS will soon decide whether to hear José Oliva’s argument that he should be allowed to sue V.A. officers for violating his Fourth Amendment rights.
Victims of the FBI's constitutionally dubious raid say they've been told to come forward and identify themselves if they want their stuff back.
The federal charges against Chauvin and three other officers involved in George Floyd's death are more about making a statement than seeking justice.
Section 702 is supposed to be used to snoop on spies and terrorists, not Americans.
The feds say they can paw through your phone and laptop any time you enter or leave the country.
A Virginia lawyer successfully defended her stepson in court. Three days later, police raided her house using a flimsy search warrant.
Did the city's "policies, customs or practices," invite Fourth Amendment violations?
Bans on dangling objects are just one example of the myriad petty rules that give police the power to stop nearly any driver at will.
A 2018 Supreme Court decision was supposed to protect your location data from federal snooping. That’s not what happened.
"This wasn't policing," the prosecution says. "This was murder."
The defense rested without calling Chauvin to the stand, and closing arguments are expected on Monday.
That was one of several eyebrow-raising claims made by Barry Brodd, who said Derek Chauvin's actions were "objectively reasonable."
The defense will have to cast doubt on at least one of those claims.
Andrew Baker's account, like the testimony of other medical experts, implicates Derek Chauvin in Floyd's death.
The witnesses rejected the defense's suggestion that Floyd might have died from a drug overdose.
A use-of-force expert says the officers who pinned George Floyd to the ground should have recognized the risk of positional asphyxia.
Medaria Arradondo says Chauvin's treatment of George Floyd violated department policy in several important ways.
Richard Zimmerman's testimony contradicts the defense claim that Derek Chauvin "did exactly what he had been trained to do."
“An officer violates the Fourth Amendment if he shoots an unarmed, incapacitated suspect who is moving away from everyone present at the scene.”
The defense will have a hard time showing that Chauvin's conduct was justified by any threat Floyd posed.
An interesting Michigan appellate decision.
"The application of physical force to the body with the intent to restrain is a seizure, even if the person does not submit and is not subdued."
“There was no immediate danger,” Sotomayor said, yet the police “decided on their own to go in and seize the gun.”
After gratuitously terrifying a 6-year-old girl, the officers blamed her mother, who also had done nothing illegal.
Art Acevedo responded to a 2019 drug raid that killed a middle-aged couple with reflexive defensiveness and obstinate obfuscation.
But the agreement could complicate Derek Chauvin's murder trial, and it leaves unresolved the question of whether qualified immunity would have blocked the lawsuit.
Like the felony murder charge, it carries a presumptive sentence more than eight years longer than the manslaughter charge.
A phone in your pocket may as well be a GPS beacon strapped to your ankle.
The justices did not address one of James King's key arguments, which the 6th Circuit will now consider.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10