Surveillance

  • April 1, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Leslie A. Shoebotham, Victor H. Schiro Distinguished Professor of Law, Loyola University New Orleans

    This week, the U.S. Supreme Court in a per curiam opinion held that monitoring a recidivist sex offender via an ankle bracelet device was a “search” for Fourth Amendment purposes.  In Grady v. North Carolina, the Court concluded that United States v. Jones controlled the case – i.e., attachment of an ankle bracelet and monitoring of the device to determine Grady’s location was a “search,” just as the government’s attachment and monitoring of a Global Positioning System (GPS) device onto Jones’s vehicle was a Fourth Amendment search.  The Court issued a summary reversal of the North Carolina Supreme Court’s non-search decision and remanded the case to the state courts to determine whether the search is reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances.

    Because of society’s strong interest in preventing child sexual abuse, as well as the overall contempt with which sex offenders are often viewed, it might be easy to assume that the North Carolina courts should find the search to be reasonable.  Don’t be lulled by the opprobrious nature of Grady’s prior crimes, however.  Based upon the facts in Grady, the ankle bracelet search at issue is premised on a future-looking ongoing search – a search that is conducted in the absence of probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion, that a crime will be committed.  If this search is upheld as reasonable, it opens the door to attachment of devices and monitoring in countless other situations.

  • November 18, 2014

    by Caroline Cox

    On the Melissa Harris-Perry Show, Janai Nelson and Amy Howe consider the new Affordable Care Act challenge and how Justice Scalia could be the deciding factor.

    Leslie Griffin writes at Hamilton & Griffin on Rights on how the recent opinion of Judge Cornelia Pillard of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Priests for Life v. HHS explains why women’s equality is not a radical idea.

    Reuben Guttman writes in the International Business Times that the U.S. midterm elections were all about money but had very little substance.

    In The Washington Post, Andrea Peterson looks at the right of citizens to record the police.

    Geoffrey R. Stone argues in the Huffington Post that Senate should approve the USA Freedom Act in order to address the issues raised by the NSA’s surveillance program.

  • July 14, 2014

    by Nicholas Alexiou

    Katie McDonough discusses, at Salon, the first arrest under Tennessee’s SB 1391, which allows prosecutors to charge a woman with criminal assault if she used narcotics during her pregnancy and such consumption is believed to harm the fetus or newborn. The Tennessee law is the first of its kind in the nation and is widely condemned by medical organizations and addiction specialists for deterring pregnant women from seeking medical treatment.

    At Slate, Ian Thompson talks about the history of abusive surveillance in the U.S. against the LGBTQ community and how current bans on racial profiling federal law-enforcement agencies must be updated to prohibit profiling on the basis of religions, sexual orientation, gender identity and national origin.

    Paul Caron details the drop in June LSAT takers at the TaxProf Blog. The number of test takers in June fell 9.1% from the previous year, the lowest figure in 14 years.

    At Hamilton and Griffin on Rights, Leslie Griffin asks if there is a divide on the Supreme Court between the Catholic and Jewish justices.

  • July 9, 2014

    by Paul Guequierre

    Must it be that we have to make a choice between national security and constitutional principles? It’s a question that has been asked by people from across the political spectrum for generations. But after 9/11 senators and representatives from both political parties strongly backed the sweeping PATRIOT Act, which would help exponentially grow the federal government’s spying apparatus. Far removed from 9/11 and with much more information about the federal government’s eavesdropping operations, more people and groups are questioning the government's motives and mechanisms for spying on Americans.

    In the past 18 months, the extent of how far the government is going in monitoring both Americans and foreigners has taken center stage. When former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden disclosed secret documents detailing just how deep our government’s spying went, heated debates erupted over whether the government was justified in backing intrusive and massive spying programs. People of all political stripes continue to weigh in, some calling Snowden a hero, others a traitor. But regardless of how you feel about Snowden, you can’t help but be amazed, and perhaps troubled, by what he has exposed.

    Snowden’s latest disclosures show other countries are working with the NSA in spying on their own citizens. And just yesterday, we got a look at which Muslim-American leaders the FBI and NSA have been spying on.    

    According to Ryan Gallagher at The Intercept, huge volumes of private e-mails, phone calls and internet chats are being intercepted by the NSA with secret cooperation of more foreign governments than previously known. Gallagher says, the classified files leaked by Snowden, shed light on how the NSA’s surveillance of global communications has expanded under a clandestine program, known as RAMPART-A, which depends on the participation of a growing network of intelligence agencies. The latest Snowden documents show that a number of countries, described by the NSA as “third-party partners,” are playing an increasingly important role – by secretly allowing the NSA to install surveillance equipment on their fiber-optic cables.

  • June 11, 2014
     
    On Tuesday, Judge Rolf M. Treu of the Los Angeles Superior Court ruled that teacher tenure laws violated students’ civil rights. Lawyers for the teacher’s union asserted that the decision placed blame solely on teachers without considering the grave effects of economic inequalities and public school funding on student performance. Jennifer Medina at The New York Times reports on the decision that may lead to big changes throughout America’s classrooms.
     
    Microsoft is fighting another warrant from federal prosecutors forcing the company to hand over a customer’s email.  The case marks the “first time a corporation has challenged a domestic search warrant seeking digital information overseas.” Steve Lohr of The New York Times has the story.
     
    Indigent prisoners who wish to file claims without paying fees may do so in forma pauperis (IFP). At CAC’s Text and History Blog, Brianna Gorod notes why the “three strikes” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which limits the number of times a prisoner can be eligible for IFP status, is unconstitutional. 
     
    On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that children waiting for immigration visas with their families must go to the back of the line when they turn 21 years-old. Lawrence Hurley at Reuters analyzes Scialabba v. de Osorio.