Saturday, June 28, 2014

SCOTUS PROTECTS THE 1ST and 4TH AMENDMENTS


This has been an epic week.  As I sit here quietly and reflect on the events of the past week, I actually had to stifle a giggle.  The United State Soccer Team lost the game but won the advancement to the Round of 16.  Chalk one up for the U.S.

That is however miniscule in comparison to the major shift in the Supreme Court of The United States as evidenced in the rulings of the week.  This week saw the Supreme Court Justices unite against the Oval Office and in favor of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution.  The instant matters revolved around two cases in which Law Enforcement conducted what they alleged were “searches commensurate to arrest” which included the contents of the arrestee’s cell phones. 

The Justices were exceptionally clear on Page 19 and 20 of their decision when they address the difference between the data and metadata contained on cell and smart phones.  The entire decision can be read here:  This is a direct quote from the text:

“Although the data stored on a cell phone is distin­guished from physical records by quantity alone, certain types of data are also qualitatively different. An Internet search and browsing history, for example, can be found on an Internet-enabled phone and could reveal an individu­al’s private interests or concerns—perhaps a search for certain symptoms of disease, coupled with frequent visits to WebMD. Data on a cell phone can also reveal where a person has been. Historic location information is a stand­ard feature on many smart phones and can reconstruct someone’s specific movements down to the minute, not only around town but also within a particular building."

Why bother putting this out here to the World?  Well, that is less complicated than the ruling.  For several years now, I have quietly been one of the core Plaintiff’s in KLAYMAN et al  v. OBAMA et al.  The cases hinge upon the NSA’s intrusions into the private lives of all Americans by their collection of the Metadata and all of the other violations of the 4th Amendment. 

According to the ruling this week by the Justice’s which was 9 to 0:

­Our cases have recognized that the Fourth Amendment was the founding generation’s response to the reviled “general warrants” and “writs of assistance” of the colonial era, which allowed British officers to rummage through homes in an unrestrained search for evidence of criminal activity. Opposition to such searches was in fact one of the driving forces behind the Revolution itself. In 1761, the patriot James Otis delivered a speech in Boston denounc­ing the use of writs of assistance. A young John Adams was there, and he would later write that “[e]very man of a crowded audience appeared to me to go away, as I did, ready to take arms against writs of assistance.” 10 Works of John Adams 247–248 (C. Adams ed. 1856). According to Adams, Otis’s speech was “the first scene of the first act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain. Then and there the child Independence was born.” Id., at 248 (quoted in Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 625 (1886)).

Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans “the privacies of life,” Boyd, supra, at 630. The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought. Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple— get a warrant.

We reverse the judgment of the California Court of Appeal in No. 13–132 and remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. We affirm the judgment of the First Circuit in No. 13–212.”

Chalk up another one for We The People.

Lastly, the Supreme Court held that the State of Massachusetts had impinged upon the Citizens’ 1st Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech. 

As time and tide progress, so will the cases in which I am involved with Larry Klayman;  against the Government’s blatant disregard for the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution of These United States. 

No comments:

Post a Comment