Two Court Decisions Further Destroy Fourth Amendment ProtectionsBy Derrick Broze Two controversial rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court and a federal judge in Virginia have civil liberties activists concerned about future abuse of power by law enforcement. On June 20, the Supreme Court ruled that evidence of a crime can be used against a defendant even if the evidence was gathered illegally. In a 5 to 3 decision, the courts liberal judge warned that the ruling might encourage future rights violations. The Associated Press reports: The ruling comes in a case in which a police detective illegally stopped defendant Joseph Edward Strieff on the streets of South Salt Lake City, Utah. A name check revealed an outstanding warrant for him. Police Detective Doug Fackrell arrested Strieff and routinely searched him, finding that he was carrying methamphetamine. The case raised the question of whether the valid warrant outweighs the stop, which was illegal because Fackrell lacked any reasonable suspicion that Strieff had been violating the law. It was the courts latest case that questions whether evidence should be thrown out of court because the police did something wrong or illegal that led to the discovery of the evidence. Since the 1914 case Weeks v. United States, the Supreme Court has interpreted the 4th Amendment to mean that evidence obtained through a violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in court. According to the Supreme Courts more liberal judges, this ruling could set a dangerous new precedent. Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the decision a threat to constitutional rights. The court today holds that the discovery of a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officers violation of your Fourth Amendment rights, Sotomayor wrote with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Do not be soothed by the opinions technical language: This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification and check it for outstanding traffic warrants even if you are doing nothing wrong. If the officer discovers a warrant for a fine you forgot to pay, courts will now excuse his illegal stop and will admit into evidence anything he happens to find by searching you after arresting you on the warrant. In a separate dissenting opinion, Justice Elena Kagan said the ruling creates unfortunate incentives for the police indeed practically invites them to do what Fackrell did here. Meanwhile, a federal court in Virginia ruled that the federal government does not need a warrant to hack into your personal computer because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. The decision stems from the prosecution of Edward Matish, one of hundreds of suspects in the Federal Bureau of Investigations investigation of the dark web child pornography site Playpen. In 2014 the FBI seized the server hosting Playpen, but continued to allow the site to operate while serving malware to thousands of people logging into the site. The malware sent identifying information from the attacked computers back to the FBI. There are now hundreds of cases pending across the country. US District Court Judge Henry Morgan denied an attempt to suppress evidence against Matish and said although the FBI had a warrant to hack the computers, it was not a requirement because there was no reasonable expectation of privacy while using the Internet. Obviously, child pornography is a disturbing sickness and should be dealt with accordingly, but the courts decisions will likely have a disastrous long-term effect on the Fourth Amendment. The Electronic Frontier Foundation filed an amicus brief in support of the Fourth Amendment in the case. The EFF writes: Courts overseeing these cases have struggled to apply traditional rules of criminal procedure and constitutional law to the technology at issue. Recognizing this, weve been participating as amicus to educate judges on the significant legal issues these cases present. In fact, EFF filed an amicus brief in this very case, arguing that the FBIs investigation ran afoul of the Fourth Amendment. The brief, unfortunately, did not have the intended effect. The EFF notes that they do not expect the ruling to hold up on appeal, but the idea that there should be no expectation of privacy while using the Internet is absolutely dangerous. To be certain, in the age of the Surveillance State one should never trust that any form of digital communication is safe from prying eyes and ears. If this decision (or even a similar one in the future) is upheld it would allow the police to remotely and randomly search and seize information from your computer or other electronic devices, without a warrant, and without probable cause. Sadly, with technology like cell site simulators, these violations of basic privacy and liberty are already taking place. These court decisions only help to cement the violations as the law of the land. Derrick Broze is an investigative journalist and liberty activist. He is the Lead Investigative Reporter for selfnewsPost.com and the founder of the TheConsciousResistance.com. Follow him on Twitter. Derrick is available for interviews. This article may be freely reposted in part or in full with author attribution and source link. Quoting the three most liberal, anti-American justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan lends zero credibility to the authors article. Sorry, but crackpots on the bench dont provide persuasive arguments. Anti American? It is the majority in this case. Take the political lenses off. Even a broke clock is correct 2 times a day, and the libs are now. No doubt the joostice system will allow all illegal searches so long as they have immunity. Not only that but it will give any arresting agency and easier path to plant evidence on someone they are wanting to bust or just dont like. The courts and judicial system are doing us a favor by exposing their crimes against America, out in the open for everyone to see. This corruption and abomination will end, and it wont be pretty. When I was growing up, America was widely known as being the land of the free and the home of the brave. Can anyone tell me what it has become since then? (Because Im starting to not recognize it anymore.) You, Americans, you have to STOP your politicians gone mad sick The war on drugs is absurd. Okay, for all the Edward Snowden fans out there, Ive been saying it from the beginning: he hasnt brought us anything we didnt already know. Now in a court ruling a judge has stated it in plain English: no reasonable expectation of privacy while using the Internet. Snowden is a honeypot a plant, a stooge an imposter. He argues ad nauseum for encryption. Look: encryption is hacked thoroughly. If its more powerful than a set limit, its not legal to buy or sell. And this leads us back to the judges statement: the government owns the web. They say no one can hear you scream in outer space. Well, no one can hear a computer on the internet unless it speaks through the routers and switches that link it together. The Government has full layer 1 access to the internet, period. If they didnt, it wouldnt exist. The Department of Defense created it. And since they do have that access, using encryption available on the open market just paints a target on you in terms of government surveillance, and using stronger encryption will lead to a knock on your door. Just sayin I knew this would happen once the authorities became dumbed down and illiterate like the rest of the country. They cant even read plain english written in the 4th amendment. all the dead soldiers died for nuthin as we lose more freedom every day Can you tell me how someone who swore an Oath of Office can exceed their mandate on legislation, decree, or court rulings and not be committing a crime? 