Podcasts about Fourth Amendment

In this age of ubiquitous surveillance, there are no private lives: everything is public. With every new surveillance device we welcome into our lives, the government gains yet another toehold into our private worlds. Indeed, empowered by advances in surveillance technology and emboldened by rapidly expanding public-private partnerships between law enforcement, the Intelligence Community, and the private sector, police have become particularly adept at sidestepping the Fourth Amendment.

The ACLU's Nate Wesson explains why the organization is suing the Springfield, MA Police Department over their use of a surveillance camera during an investigation. The camera was posted on public property but there was no warrant issued, bringing up Fourth Amendment concerns.

When we think about government surveillance, we often imagine something physical, like a police officer executing a search warrant on a house or car. But increasingly, government surveillance, including the everyday work of police departments across the country, involves remote electronic monitoring or the analysis of massive amounts of digital information.A leading analyst of this transformation and of the implications it has for our privacy and security is Chris Slobogin, a professor at Vanderbilt Law School and one of the leading scholars of the digital Fourth Amendment. Lawfare senior editor Alan Rozenshtein sat down with Chris to discuss his new book, “Virtual Searches: Regulating the Covert World of Technological Policing,” in which Chris explains how the traditional legal framework for surveillance is out of date and what should take its place. Alan and Chris talk about the importance of taking a more flexible approach to what makes a search reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and why it's so important for legislatures to pre-authorize any police surveillance techniques. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On this episode Ariel is joined by returning guest Laura LeDoux about a serious issue, that what you don't know can hurt you. Women's FemTech data can be used against them, this is something you should know about so you can tell your families and friends. Ida Tin coined the term FemTech. She is the Co-Founder of Clue, a women's health tracking app. FemTech has grown to encompass a range of technology-enabled, consumer-centric products and solutions. Other examples of women's healthcare apps are: Nurx (birth control delivery); Khair (tracking your period, pregnancy, speaking to a doctor); Sexual Activity Log and Tracker (this includes birth control information as well as sexual activity); Ease (birth control reminders), and Unified Women's Healthcare. The Griswold versus Connecticut case was the Supreme Court case that first gave women the right to contraception in the United States in 1965, making the prevention by states of the use of contraception by married couples illegal in 1965. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/381/479/  States that ban abortion are: Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma From: https://www.google.com/search?q=states+that+ban+abortion&rlz=1C1CHZN_enUS1020US1027&oq=states+that+ban+&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0i512l9.7504j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8  Interactive map of abortion laws in the U.S.: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/us/abortion-laws-roe-v-wade.html  Some states that have restricted access to contraception funds are: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin, according to the Guttmacher Institute. From: New Research Shows State Restrictions Reduce Contraception Use by Christine Vestal, 9/22/22,  Pew Charitable Trusts, https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/09/22/new-research-shows-state-restrictions-reduce-contraception-use  Megan Kavanaugh, principal research scientist at Guttmacher, said,“Given the increased restrictive climate around abortion in our country, we are anticipating amped-up attacks on contraceptive access, as both of these are efforts that target people's reproductive autonomy and freedom,” she added. Guttmacher's research describes the change in contraceptive use that occurred after Iowa opted out of a Medicaid family planning program in 2017 and set up its own state-funded contraception program, which excluded clinics that provided abortion along with other health services. The study found that the share of patients at publicly funded family planning centres in Iowa who had not recently received contraceptives increased from 32% to 62% over two years. The share of patients not using any contraceptive method increased from 9% to 15%. Roughly 50 million, or 65% of women of reproductive age, 15-49, used some form of contraception from 2015 to 2017, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 1 in 3 low-income people who use contraception rely on Planned Parenthood or other publicly funded clinics to pay for the often-costly pills or devices. Medicaid, which covers about 70 million individuals, is the largest funding source for free contraception. Another federal program, Title X, provides additional funds to roughly 4,000 clinics across the country to support access to contraception. During the Trump administration, those funds were withheld from Planned Parenthood and other clinics that provide abortion. In July, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a reminder to insurance companies that birth control, along with other preventive care, must be covered under the Affordable Care Act at no cost.  The agency said the action was part of a Biden administration effort to protect women's access to contraception in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision that eliminated the longstanding federal right to abortion. “Under the ACA, you have the right to free birth control — no matter what state you live in,” HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra said in a statement. “With abortion care under attack, it is critical that we ensure birth control is accessible nationwide, and that employers and insurers follow the law and provide coverage for it with no additional cost.” From https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/09/22/new-research-shows-state-restrictions-reduce-contraception-use   What can women do to be proactive with their data privacy and security and their healthcare apps? Protect your data Use enhanced protection, especially if you're in a state that does not protective women's reproductive rights, e.g. Pseudonyms Having sensitive conversations orally instead of over text/email/apps Be aware that deleting data does NOT make it unavailable to law enforcement Don't post personal health conditions on social media Lobby your local lawmakers to enhance data privacy laws at the state level to protect healthcare data shared over apps In extreme cases, move to a state that honours and protects women's reproductive rights. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is also affected by the Roe decision.  "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." From https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-4/  KEY TAKEAWAYS FemTech is something that's at the forefront of technology in general and specifically technology to do with women's health. It provides solutions to improve healthcare for women across a number of female-specific conditions including maternal health, menstrual health, pelvic health, sexual health, fertility, menopause, contraception, other general health conditions that affect women disproportionately such as osteoporosis or cardiovascular disease. It also affects the transgender community as well. There is no Federal protection for women's reproductive rights. The Dobbs Decision has now left that to each individual state. You may have certain rights in ‘x' state and then you move into ‘y' state and now you no longer have those same rights. Health data that's collected by a health provider, like a hospital or doctor's office, is protected by a Federal law called HIPA (Healthcare Information Privacy Act). HIPA doesn't apply to data collected by a healthcare app, for example, that you're using to track your menstrual cycle because you're trying to get or avoid getting pregnant. That data is protected by whatever state law is in effect with regards to data privacy in general. The upsides of FemTech are that it creates apps, and virtual and digital space that improves care delivery with virtual clinics, direct to consumer prescription delivery – including the morning after pill – it enables self-care through tracking diagnostics, it improves diagnostics, it addresses stigmatised topics such as menstrual health, sexual health and pelvic care. It delivers culturally sensitive and tailored care for frequently marginalised communities, it also opens up healthcare and certain types of healthcare that maybe weren't able to be physically present in neglected communities. It's really been a catalyst for positive changes in healthcare. But now, with the collapse of privacy protections after Roe vs Wade we really need to be proactive in making sure we're being vigilant about our own data privacy and security when using FemTech apps and what kinds of conversations we're having over text messages. BEST MOMENTS “Women's health rights have always been important, but they've never been more important than they are now in the wake of the Dobbs Decision.” “If aggressive states can utilise this data in any way to prove that somebody may have intentionally miscarried, then they can file criminal charges against those women.”“There are now cases where women are having defence attorneys in the emergency room with them to protect them if they're having a miscarriage.”“State like Texas don't have any exceptions for rape or incest. It's horrifying.” ABOUT THE GUEST Laura LeDoux, Esq., CIPP/US provides trusted program management and policy guidance in the Information Security space Laura leverages her legal acumen and expertise in information security, data privacy and compliance to help clients achieve their goals while staying compliant with applicable laws and regulations. Laura liaisons with technical and legal professionals from around the world to deliver innovative solutions that merge legal and technical requirements to ensure end-to-end compliance.  Socials: If you want to connect with Laura LeDoux, please add her on LinkedIn at  https://www.linkedin.com/in/lauraledoux/ or reach out to Ariel.  ABOUT THE HOST Ariel is a Licensed Massage Therapist, Registered Clinical Hypnotherapist, Reiki Master, Empath and Psychic who has been involved in holistic healing since 1988. She is also an educator, speaker, author and mentor for empaths, spiritual seekers and medical professionals. To reach Ariel, go to www.arielhubbard.com, where you will be able to contact her directly.  Please let her know you heard her on the podcast and the assistance you need or question you have. Website: www.arielhubbard.com Online Courses: http://hubbardeducationgroup.myclick4course.com LinkedIn: @arielhubbardIG: @arielhubbardFacebook: @HubbardEducationGroupYT: @arielhubbardCH: @arielhubbard Pinterest:   https://pin.it/6Z6RozS Pre-order form for Ariel's educational, hilarious and spicy dating book: The Empowered Woman's Guide to Online Dating: Set Your BS Tolerance to Zerohttps://eworder.replynow.ontraport.net/ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Paul Sherman explains how occupational licensing often violates the First Amendment.Follow @IdeasHavingSexx on Twitter.Today's article: Occupational Speech and the First Amendment by Paul Sherman, as well as Paul's recommendation: Professional Speech and the First Amendment by Rodney SmollaThe Institute for JusticeLiberty and Law articlesShort Circuit NewsletterFollow @PaulMSherman on Twitter.Topics: First Amendment, freedom of speech, free expression, law, supreme court, Edward Snowden, Fourth Amendment, privacy, civil asset forfeiture, qualified immunity, police brutality, constitution, civil rights

Police Cadet Rapist on To Catch A Predator Michael Patterson Police InterrogationMichael Joseph Patterson, otherwise known as jon_raven2000 was a predator caught in the Bowling Green, Kentucky installment of To Catch a Predator. He is perhaps best known for screaming his ass off while being arrested by the police.BiographyPrior to the sting operation, Patterson was a reserve police officer in Lebron, Indiana, who was fired for using police car lights to pull someone over, impersonating an on-duty officer.Patterson drove 5 hours away from Kouts, Indiana to the sting house in Bowling Green to meet up with a girl he believed to be thirteen. Within 2 hours of being acquainted with the decoy online, he drives to her house and talks to her over the phone on the way. During the conversation, he discloses that he carries a gun with him everywhere, so the sting team gave the decoy special instructions to make sure he was unarmed upon arrival. The decoy gives a series of verbal commands to Patterson to prove that he is unarmed, and he giddily does so without suspecting a thing. Once he enters the house he gives into the decoy's small talk, admiring the house and falsely telling her that he's a detective lieutenant. After disclosing this he is greeted by Chris Hansen, who exercises his own detective skills and asks Patterson why he's there. Patterson cites his loneliness and his ongoing divorce as reasons to commit statutory rape.After chuckling at hearing some of his chat log lines, he is let go by Chris, only to come face to face with a group of officers (who are advised to act more swiftly than usual due to the earlier suspicion of him being armed).Upon seeing the officers, he steps back into the house and makes a run for it, being shot with a taser gun as a result. Only one of the prods of the taser connects with Patterson's body, which allowed him to run even further through the house without being electrocuted. Like a scene straight from The Walking Dead, he is quickly ambushed from all sides and taken down while he screams and begs hysterically.AftermathOn June 11, 2008, Patterson was convicted of Traveling In Interstate Commerce For The Purpose Of Engaging In A Sexual Act With A Minor. He received 7 years in federal prison and 10 years supervised release. He also received three years and ten months by the state of Kentucky. Both sentences were served concurrently.In 2011 Patterson represented himself in a civil lawsuit against NBC Universal, Inc., asking for $40,000,000 each in monetary and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief in the form of having all information about him taken off television and NBC's website. Patterson's allegations include:He was "lured" to the sting house, and that the decoy took advantage of his "vulnerability".NBC Universal, Inc.'s "libel, slander and defamatory statements" have caused him mental and emotional stress and ruined his reputation.NBC Universal, Inc.'s participation in his arrest and search violated his constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment.State law claims for intentional disclosure of private facts, intrusion on the right to be left alone, harassment/intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence.NBC Universal, Inc. is liable for violating the "Journalistic Code of Ethics."Patterson's complaint was entirely void of any factual allegations regarding his claim for negligence, and the case was dismissed.TriviaHis scream is commonly compared to Homer Simpson and Tom from Tom and Jerry.He is the only tased predator to withstand the taser shot before being taken down.True Crime Podcast 2022 Police Interrogations, 911 Calls and True Police Stories Podcast

The laws surrounding phone and computer searches can be complicated and are ever-evolving. Attorney Jay Ruane sheds some light on when a phone or computer can be searched on this episode of the podcast. For further assistance with a possible search and seizure violation, contact us at 203-925-9200.

Hasan-Nayem v. U.S. Att'y Gen., No. 21-12402 (11th Cir. Dec. 7, 2022)·       credibility; inconsistencies; omissions, demeanor; memorizing testimony; evasiveness; asylum; Liberal Democratic Party; Awami League; Bangladesh Matter of Mariscal-Hernandez, 28 I&N Dec. 666 (BIA Dec. 9, 2022)·       suppression; Fourth Amendment; egregious violation; Matter of Barcenas; termination; Pereira; I-213; probative evidence; INA § 287; 8 C.F.R. § 287 Diaz-Rodriguez v. Garland, No. 13-73719 (9th Cir. Dec. 8, 2022) (en banc)·       Cal. Penal Code § 273a(a); crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment; INA § 237(a)(2)(E)(i); categorical approach; statutory interpretation; agency deference; Chevron.*Sponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.Docketwise"Modern immigration software & case management"Capital Good Fund"A social change organization that uses financial services to tackle poverty in America."Want to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your host!More episodes!Case notes!Top 15 immigration podcast in the U.S.!Featured in San Diego Voyager!DISCLAIMER:Immigration Review® is a podcast made available for educational purposes only. It does not provide legal advice. Rather, it offers general information and insights from publicly available immigration cases. By accessing and listening to the podcast, you understand that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the host. The podcast should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney in your state.MUSIC CREDITS:"Loopster," "Bass Vibes," "Chill Wave," and "Funk Game Loop" Kevin MacLeod - Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0Support the show

This week Sasquatch reveals he has found the unicorn! The answer to the question we've all been asking. Finally we know. Also Denton gives a Public Service Announcement to all the Fatty's out there and California is letting sex offenders out of jail at alarming rates. Plus, a Federal public defender successfully argues the FBI violated people's Fourth Amendment on Jan. 6th. Last but not least Sas ends the show by possibly offending Irish people?*Note* On our last show we were supposed to link this site and forgot. So, here ya go:https://libertyscore.conservativereview.com/ 

In this episode, Liz Darrow talks with Maya Morales, founder of WA People's Privacy, about commercial surveillance, data security,  and legislation that would interrupt the sale of massive amounts of data to federal and law enforcement agencies.Songs in this episode:Watching Me by Jill ScottSurveillance Capitalism by Evan GreerTechnologic by Daft PunkSupport the show

The Fourth Amendment protects you from unreasonable search and seizure by the government. Unless the government wants to unreasonably search and/or seize. In that case, the Supreme Court says "go for it babes!"If you're not a 5-4 Premium member, you're not hearing every episode! To get exclusive Premium-only episodes, discounts on merch, access to our Slack community, and more, join at fivefourpod.com/support.]5 to 4 is presented by Prologue Projects. Rachel Ward is our producer. Leon Neyfakh and Andrew Parsons provide editorial support. Our production manager is Percia Verlin, and our assistant producer is Arlene Arevalo. Our website was designed by Peter Murphy. Our artwork is by Teddy Blanks at Chips NY, and our theme song is by Spatial Relations.Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon) and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Can I make a citizen's arrest? What are the implications of taking matters into your own hands? How might you defend your decision to a judge or jury? The Safety Doc welcomes the Legalman to this episode to address those questions and to delve into the Legalman's perspectives, juries, voting, political propaganda, and government overreach. ABOUT THE LEGALMAN. Legalman's website states, “Forget left v right. This is the truth about the system from a man who knows. The Quash (podcast) is hosted by a lawyer with 30 years of experience. He unmasks the absurd false narratives we've been immersed in 24/7 since birth and laughs at them. There's a reason nothing about the system ever makes any sense. You've been lied to your whole life. But that ends now. Learn more at https://the-quash.captivate.fm/   CAN I MAKE A CITIZEN'S ARREST? Per the Village of Bayside, Wisconsin website, “Wisconsin doesn't actually have a specific statute regarding citizen's arrests, but such arrests are covered by common law or judge-made law. Those laws allow citizens to make arrests under one of two conditions. The first is when a citizen has probable cause to believe that the person they are arresting has committed a felony. The second is when someone witnesses a misdemeanor and the misdemeanor is a breach of the peace. Generally, we don't advise making citizen's arrests. We do advise calling police and staying on the scene if it's safe, but safety is paramount. If someone is wielding a knife or attacking someone, he or she may just as easily attack you. Some exceptions apply, particularly when the perpetrator is going to flee. For example, if you see a child being kidnapped and can block the kidnapper's car from getting away with the child, it may be worth the risk. In addition to safety concerns, you also face legal risks when making a citizen's arrest. The Fourth Amendment restricts unreasonable searches and seizures, and you could be prosecuted for depriving someone of their constitutional rights. You could also face a civil lawsuit for false imprisonment, assault, or battery.” JURY TRIAL - THE LAST BASTION OF HOPE? In episode #43 of The Quash, the Legalman explains how the jury trial is a piece of the political structure of this country. How has the jury American trial changed over time, and what obstacles are between a citizen and impartial legal due process? What are the differences between what most people perceive as impartial justice and actual court-delivered “justice” as observed by a lawyer with 3 decades of experience? FULLY INFORMED JURY ASSOCIATION. Legalman urged people to increase their knowledge about jury trials, noting that, as an example, learning from Fully Informed Jury Association, www.fija.org might empower jurors' awareness of their right to refuse unjust law. As stated on FIJA's website, “We will be looking at numerous aspects indicative of the health or lack thereof of jury systems nationwide. We will evaluate the rules as officially spelled out, as well as their functionality in practice, of juries at the federal level, in all fifty states, and in Washington, D.C. with respect to each of these jury health indicators.” People can subscribe, at no cost, to obtain emails from FIJA centering on what's happening in and around their community.  HOBBES' LEVIATHAN. Government overreach is a theme in The Quash podcasts, and it was also depicted in Doc's book, School of Errors - Rethinking School Safety in America. Doc wrote about the Hobbes' Leviathan (1651) and the social contract. Hobbes' premise was that people functioned optimally with some basic level of a “sovereign” to facilitate order. But, Hobbes also opined that it was predictable human nature that the governed would progressively surrender their rights (and freedoms) in exchange for progressively more control from the government. Or, the people in power would be unwilling to relinquish it. “To Hobbes, people are plagued by these two forces: the desire for power and everyone else's annoying desire for power. Everyone would be all for power struggles if they could just concentrate on conniving, but watching your back is a pain in the neck (it would be centuries before Sartre sputtered that “hell is other people,” but surely this is a precursor). A few people enjoy constant drama, but most would rather be left alone if they can't have all the pie. Therefore, power tends to coalesce into a formal government because most people can't be bothered to micromanage their power relationships to everyone and everything around them—they would rather outsource that headache, thank you very much (School of Errors, 2019).” SAFETY DOC WEBSITE, BLOG & BOOKS: www.safetyphd.com. The Safety Doc Podcast is hosted & produced by David P. Perrodin, PhD. This podcast and blog post represent the opinions of David P. Perrodin and his guests to the show. This is episode 193 of The Safety Doc Podcast published on 11-11-2022. Purchase Dr. Perrodin's Books: School of Errors – Rethinking School Safety in America. www.schooloferrors.com Velocity of Information - Human Thinking During Chaotic Times. www.velocityofinformation.com

On Northern Kentucky University Week:  How well do you know your Constitutional Amendments? Michael Mannheimer, professor of law, looks into an interpretation of two in the U.S. Mike Mannheimer is the author of The Fourth Amendment: Original Understandings and Modern Policing (University of Michigan Press forthcoming 2023). He has been teaching at NKU-Chase College of […]

Regular viewers of our podcast certainly understand the role of the Bill of Rights was not so much to grant rights to citizens but to limit the actions of the federal government in curtailing an individual's rights.  That trend continues in the Fourth Amendment.  It places two vital restrictions on the government: unreasonable search and seizures and warrants only with probable cause.  Why is this so important?  Just what exactly constitutes probable cause, reasonable suspicion and reasonable doubt?  For these answers and so many others, join our special guest, Cully Stimson with the Heritage Foundation and our rockstar student panelists for this “reasonable” discussion into the Fourth Amendment.

Attorney Aaron Mackey joins Tim to talk about how intelligence agencies, law enforcement and private companies are buying your data as part of larger surveillance operations. Is this against the spirit of the Fourth Amendment rights to privacy?  Aaron works for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, or the EFF. The foundation is the leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital world. It champions user privacy, free expression, and innovation. In this episode, Aaron talks about your privacy. How much you have, who's invading it, how they're doing it. And most importantly, what they're doing with your personal information. https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/shapingopinion/Swiping_Your_Privacy_auphonic.mp3 You probably already know that you don't have much privacy. When you leave your house, cameras are watching. You have cameras throughout the city, sending images back to some central security hub. Then you have cameras homeowners install to watch their own property. In the process, you can't walk down any street without the possibility that you're being watched and recorded. But it's not just cameras. That smartphone in your pocket may be the most prolific source of your private data. The cloud knows where you are, where you were, how long you spent there, and in some cases, where you're going. It knows what you're thinking about based on what it hears you saying through the microphone and the search engine in the device itself. Did you use a social media app like Facebook, Twitter or Instagram? It's not just each of those sites that know what you're saying and doing. It's the network that the phone itself is connected to.  They know…and they share. They share your information, and you don't know who's seeing it, and what they're doing with it. You don't know how you're being judged. Aaron Mackey is a senior attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. I mentioned all of this to him, but I asked him the big question on my mind. We know these companies have our information, but is it all harmless? Links The Electronic Frontier Foundation Big Brother Watching? Government agencies buying cell phone, internet data to track Americans, Just the News Carpenter v. United States (2018) Supreme Court Case, National Constitution Center About this Episode's Guest Aaron Mackey Aaron Mackey is a senior attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). He works on free speech, anonymity, privacy, government surveillance and transparency. Before joining EFF in 2015, Aaron was in Washington, D.C. where he worked on speech, privacy, and freedom of information issues at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the Institute for Public Representation at Georgetown Law. Aaron graduated from Berkeley Law in 2012, where he worked for EFF while a student in the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic. He also holds an LLM from Georgetown Law. Prior to law school, Aaron was a journalist at the Arizona Daily Star in Tucson, Arizona. He received his undergraduate degree in journalism and English from the University of Arizona in 2006, where he met his amazing wife, Ashley. They have two young children.  

1 Ninth Circuit Ruling Creates Circuit Split on Fourth Amendment IssueIn the case of Verdun v. City of San Diego, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruledthat the City of San Diego did not violate the Fourth Amendment by chalking tires without awarrant to enforce parking time limits. The decision creates a split with the Sixth Circuit on theissue.Vec discusses the ruling. 2Pennsylvania's Speech Code for LawyersNCLA has filed an amicus brief in Greenberg v. Lehocky opposing the attempt by Pennsylvaniaofficials to revive a rule that would introduce overly vague language governing discrimination-based misconduct in the legal profession. Pennsylvania's Rule 8.4(g) exposes attorneys todiscipline—including sanctions that deprive lawyers of the ability to earn a livelihood—if, whilein the practice of law, they knowingly communicate in a manner “constituting harassment ordiscrimination.”Mark describes NCLA's amicus brief in Greenberg v. Lehocky.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In the United States, the exclusionary rule is a legal rule, based on constitutional law, that prevents evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights from being used in a court of law. This may be considered an example of a prophylactic rule formulated by the judiciary in order to protect a constitutional right. The exclusionary rule may also, in some circumstances at least, be considered to follow directly from the constitutional language, such as the Fifth Amendment's command that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" and that no person "shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The exclusionary rule is grounded in the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights, and it is intended to protect citizens from illegal searches and seizures. The exclusionary rule is also designed to provide a remedy and disincentive for criminal prosecution from prosecutors and police who illegally gathered evidence in violation of the Fifth Amendment and its protection against self-incrimination. The exclusionary rule also protects against violations of the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the right to counsel. Most states also have their own exclusionary remedies for illegally obtained evidence under their state constitutions and/or statutes, some of which predate the federal constitutional guarantees against unlawful searches and seizures and compelled self-incrimination. This rule is occasionally referred to as a legal technicality because it allows defendants a defense that does not address whether the crime was actually committed. In this respect, it is similar to the explicit rule in the Fifth Amendment protecting people from double jeopardy. In strict cases, when an illegal action is used by police/prosecution to gain any incriminating result, all evidence whose recovery stemmed from the illegal action—this evidence is known as "fruit of the poisonous tree"—can be thrown out from a jury (or be grounds for a mistrial if too much information has been irrevocably revealed). The exclusionary rule applies to all persons within the United States regardless of whether they are citizens, immigrants (legal or illegal), or visitors. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

In this episode of Real Talk, KJK Student Defense Attorneys Susan Stone and Kristina Supler are joined by Danielle Citron, author, privacy expert, and a law professor at the University of Virginia School of Law.  They discuss digital privacy and the internet. The conversation includes the little-known ways your data is being collected and sold, how your data can potentially be weaponized against you, the sad reality of how the law works against victims of digital privacy violations and how to become a better digital citizen.  Links: Website: https://www.daniellecitron.com  Show Notes: (00:28) How the internet has made life a lot more convenient these days (00:52) Why the internet is also a dangerous place for students  (03:13) What is the concept of intimate privacy on the internet? (03:50) Why your personal data is not actually, “safe,” and is actually being tracked and sold to marketers  (05:16) Why even the Department of Defense advises its enlistees from using 23 and me or similar services  (05:54) How your DNA is legally being sold and exploited by ancestry composition services, even outside of the United States (08:30) Don't take nude photos or sex videos if you don't want to be vulnerable  (09:15) Why you may be charged with child pornography even if you take your own nudes or send them consensually.  (10:15) What consenting adults need to know before sharing their nudes with others (11:03) The harsh reality of what happens when you report your vulnerable photos being misused to the authorities (12:24) Why women and minorities are more vulnerable to being exploited online (13:38) Can data on your period tracking apps be used against women since the criminalization of abortion in some states? (15:56) How our phones can essentially be weaponized against us by law enforcement, thanks to  advertisers, marketers, data brokers. (17:03) How even your location and Google search history can create a domino effect of circumstantial evidence (18:39) Will the purpose of your search history be considered should it be used against you in a criminal case? (20:22) Hate speech online: Are the First Amendment rights in favor of the violators in the non-private sector? (22:00) How intimate privacy violations are handled in the private sector: working with Atty. General Kamala Harris on building the cyber exploitation task force. (25:22) Dealing with intimate privacy violations: Why your photo may legally be allowed to stay online because of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (26:55) How Section 230 has been drastically misconstrued especially in social media violations (28:07) Why Reddits and sub-reddits are the new breeding ground of non-consensual intimate imagery  (28:32) How the law is further victimizing victims of digital privacy violations  (30:06) Why it is crucial to change the law that protects the solicitors of intimate privacy violations instead of the victims (32:10) How to be a better digital citizen: For you and for other people (33:40) Why speaking up is necessary to put a stop to digital privacy violations Transcript: Susan Stone: So this is the second in a two-part series. Is there a series? If there's only two?  Kristina Supler: I think we've just made it one.  Susan Stone: Okay. On digital privacy and the internet. , I think we can all agree that the internet brings with us a lot of ease to our life. I know that today I ran out of toothpaste and went right on my Amazon and clicked, Didn't have to run out. There you go. But it can also be a scary place  Kristina Supler: In our practice representing students in, in various contexts we're dealing and wrestling with digital evidence every day and in a variety of different contexts. We handle cases involving sexting, cancel culture, and different iterations of that, and it's, it's amazing to see. I'm still amazed, Susan, I don't know if you feel the same way, what our, our clients and their peers say and do and put on the internet.  Susan Stone: Well, it's not just that. It's that I still have a lot of trouble with the fact that the whole etiquette of our society has changed with the internet and with cell phones. I still think it's incredibly rude to look at your cell phone at the dinner table. And I will often say to my adult children and my high school age children, put it down. Well, talk to me. I'm right here.  Kristina Supler: Absolutely. I agree. Well, today we are thrilled to be joined by the esteemed Danielle Citron, who's a law professor at the University of Virginia School of Law. where she teaches and writes about privacy, free expression and civil rights. For the past decade, she's worked as a civil rights advocate and has worked with lawmakers, law enforcement officers, and various tech companies to combat online abuse and to protect intimate privacy. She's been directly involved in some reform effort. Surrounding the regulation of various online platforms. Since 2011, Danielle has been a member of Safety Task Forces for Facebook and Twitter, and she also serves as an advisor for. Dating apps like Bumble and Streaming Services and TikTok, so be interested to hear more about that. She's written countless articles published across the G Globe and her most recent book, which just came out is titled The Fight for Privacy, Protecting Dignity, Identity, and Love in The Digital Age. Danielle, thanks for joining us.  Danielle Citron: We're really excited. Thanks so much for having me. Awesome.  Susan Stone: Well, d Danielle, you study how most of our private data is collected and stored. Can you talk to our listeners about intimate privacy. What it is, and how does it impact our daily life?  Danielle Citron: So the concept of intimate privacy is all the ways that we others have access to and information about our bodies, our health, our innermost thoughts that we, we essentially convey all day long. Our browsing, our reading, our searching our, of course texting and emailing our information and access to, uh, our sexual activities our sex, our sexual orientation, our gender, and our closest relationships. And all day long, every day we go about our lives sharing and provid access to our intimate privacy Kind of expecting hoping, and of course, deserving intimate privacy.  And I wish I could say that we have it, but unfortunately we often don't. So when we go to a hotel room or a public bath bathroom, we sort of assume that no one is taping us there when we, take a nude photo of ourselves or share really intimate thoughts with a loved one via text. We assume that they are gonna keep that confidential. And when companies ferry that information and store that information, we assume, right? They're gonna protect it from hacking. And when we use apps, we search, we check out our health, a digital assistance, like our health apps, our Fitbit. We share information about our health conditions, whether we've gotten our period, whether you. We have visited adult sites. The videos that we watch, all that information, we of course want, expect and hope, privacy, that we enjoy privacy. What we don't think, and we don't realize is that all that information is being tracked, sold to advertisers as and marketers and then to data brokers. Susan Stone: You know what's so interesting? I did the 23andme. and I am, oh boy. Oh  boy, .  Well,  Danielle Citron: there  Susan Stone: was nothing, surprisingly, I am mostly an Ashkenazi jew. That should be no surprise to anybody and a part Neanderthal. But what I was shocked with is the emails that have flowed in as a result  Kristina Supler: of me. You just been inundated by junk, or you name it. Susan Stone: It's bizarre. I mean, now I guess the government knows all my genetic information. Wow.  Danielle Citron: Right, So, So I'm a little worried, right? The Department of of Defense tells all of its Enlistees and all of its officers that they shouldn't use 23 and me. Because that information Wow is gonna be shared outside, you know, the United States and potentially with governments that could use it to extort and blackmail. Uh, they're enlistees. So tell us like, if the DO OD is telling them not to do it, why are you doing it?  Kristina Supler: Where did Susan's information go?  Susan Stone: Yeah, tell me and what are they gonna do with the fact? Tell me that I'm an Ashkenazi Jew. I mean, I don't know. Well,  Kristina Supler: is it in,  Danielle Citron: you're, you're a DNA isn't just relevant to you. It's relevant to everyone who shares some of that material. And so that makes your identity and the identity of people in your family and those you care about, then visible, detectable to others. And that's not just including, of course, marketers and advertisers, which I don't want that happening either. But it's still, it's happening. It's, these information is not covered and protected by hipaa. But because it's eligible to be sold and exploited, it's eligible to be sold and exploited to data brokers who are selling it to non USA  Susan Stone: uS governments. Danielle, my husband wouldn't participate because he said he didn't want anyone knowing about his dna. And I told him he was crazy. So David, sounds like you're  Kristina Supler: the, You could, That's  Danielle Citron: pot-kettle, right? And it's not like I'm wearing its tin hat. Right friends. I'm not. No, I agree. All these ways that I gotta say I love my Spotify app . There are all these ways in which I love these tools too. So I'm, I'm not suggesting that we throw them in the sea. Our phones, right, our apps. But what I am saying is that there's so little protection that 23 and me might think, Gosh, that's health. Of course they're protecting my dna and the answer is absolutely not. HIPAA does not apply, nor does the, genetic, uh, non-discrimination information Act only applies to employers. So it's honestly, I wanna, I, you know, I wanna allow us some room to say some things don't do. But also to call for structural reforms cuz there's only so much I want you to have to get rid of . I want us to use these tools, but I want us to use them in ways that are with commitments of protection. Sure.  Kristina Supler: Mm-hmm. . So I'd like to circle back. You had mentioned nude photos and Yeah. Again, that's something Susan, I mean we,  Susan Stone: we've all the time, Kristina Supler: many, many cases involving nude photos and you speak in your book uh, about how nude photos, extortion, revenge porn. It, it's something that is, is on the rise in terms of abuse. When we talk about nude photos, I think sometimes society as a whole might be quick to say. People might judge and say, Well, if you don't want people to see 'em, Don't take 'em otherwise, you, you incur the risk. What's your response to that type of thinking? Susan Stone: And might I add, I know we give advice all the time to parents to tell, say to their kids, This is a hard no. I know you just spoke about you don't wanna put too many fences up or guardrails. You want people to enjoy some of the benefits of the internet. But this is an area I know we feel strongly, especially with minors. No nude photos first.  Danielle Citron: Yeah. Yeah.  Kristina Supler: What's the response?  Danielle Citron: Yeah, I've got two. The first is that to the response that if you don't wanna be vulnerable, don't take the photos. It belies the reality that sex videos can be made about you without your involvement.  Kristina Supler: The deep fakes. Danielle Citron: Not only Right, right, right. Not only the non-consensual sort of, um, videotaping in your bedroom that you don't know about, haven't permitted, but fakery. Mm-hmm. . So women's and girls' faces are swapped into porn at. There are now like 60,000 videos, deep fake sex videos, digitally manipulated videos online. And guess what? 95% of them are deep fake sex videos and over 98% of them are women and girls' faces. It's terrifying. You would. Terrifying. So the idea that like you shouldn't have done it, the answer is, well, you didn't. Okay, That's the first. The second is heated agreement about anyone under 18. Right. If you're on 18, it's understood as child exploitation material. Yes. So even if you create it yourself, even if you consensually share it with someone your own age, you know, like share it with another 15 year old with whom you're in a relationship with, the answer is for both of you, it's child sexual exploitation material, even though which is violates federal and state law, even though the whole point of these rules are. Predation, right? Child predators, but they're very formalistic, these roles. And it's like you make it, you share it. And even if you're in a consensual relationship, you're 16, you've got another, you know, you have a partner who's 16, don't do it. So I would say I'm totally at, agree with me. Whenever I give calls, I mean, talks to folks who were under 18. I say, Don't do it. You're not allowed. State and federal law says it's child pornography. Too much risk. Um, It. Right. And I do also say to young people who are over 18, and I have some of them in my own house two 20 year olds in that age range, age range. I say there's nothing wrong with sexual expression at all. Like what was important to my spouse and I making mixed tapes and writing love letters is like, it has a different valence. You do it differently in the 21st century. Right. But I do say makes you trust the person. Because of course it could be fakey, but crucially, you gotta be sure you're sharing in a confidential relationship. It doesn't guarantee anything. But I don't wanna be that person who says you can't do it when you're 25. But I do say be careful with whom one shares because trust is everything.  Susan Stone: Well, and I'd like to add, a lot of people aren't aware that it's the one who takes the picture that owns the copyright of the picture. So you might think it's give it back to, it's me, it's my photo. But the law says otherwise.  Danielle Citron: Right. And, and that we have to look to copyright to help us, protect us is unfortunate cuz it's not about property and, you know, and, and creativity and making money off of the photo. This is about privacy. That's right. And it's about, you know, my image doesn't belong to you and shouldn't be appropriated even if you took it and. I wish I could say was law was more responsive. When people non consensually share nude images of you without your permission, assuming you're over 18 law enforcement, often you go report it and they say, Sorry, close your computer. Boys will be boys. It's your, it's your fault. Yeah, they don't do anything. They see a lot of that. And then it's really hard to get lawyers who are willing to represent you low bono or pro bono. Mm-hmm. . Cause we gotta make a living somehow, attorneys. Right. And you can't go to a. There's no deep pocket, can't go to the platforms, right? And when you wanna sue a, a perpetrator, they probably have very little money. So it, it's becomes like a way in which the response to victim is, Well, go sue your perpetrator, or go put them in jail. And the answer is, you can do almost neither as a practical matter. So we need to kind of rethink how we protect intimate privacy in the digital age. Susan Stone: In your opinion, what groups of people are the most vulnerable when it comes to intimate privacy, collecting, mining, and selling. Danielle Citron: Okay, so, so first things first. It's not my opinion, and these are just add to evidence, right? We have studies that show when it comes to the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. This is across the globe that women in their twenties are most vulnerable. Okay? So that's first things first. The second is that we also know that when it comes to the exp, you know, the collection use and sharing of our. So that's the everyday companies, right? Collecting, using, and sharing our data, that it's gonna be more costly and is more costly for women, non-whites, LGBTQ individuals, people from vulnerable communities because it's their bodies, right? That are stigmatized, right? So when you, a nude photo is posted online of a woman versus a man, the response to the man is like, Go get him. You know, good for you guy. And for the woman, it costs her her job. It makes it impossible to date. She sort of disappears. So we know that the exploitation of intimate information, the information about your bodies, your health, your sexual activities, your close relationships, that's gonna be more costly to women and vulnerable people. Kristina Supler: You mentioned that law enforcement in the United States. They have some of the biggest intimate privacy consumers. You talk about this in your book, How pertinent is it that now, especially since the overturning of Roe versus Wade in June what can you tell us about how data collection can be weaponized against women? Danielle Citron: Uh, so what do they say? We, we were holding all of our breath, right, before the leak. Mm-hmm. of the Dobbs decision. And now that we have the Dobbs decision we know of course that now there are over 14 states that have criminalized abortion, some at the start, and then others, like within a certain band. And all of that infor, that is the information that is collected on our period tracking apps, our search engine. Our location data collected by apps that are then shared all of this with data brokers, tell a story about where we've gone. Have we seen a health provider? Do we cross state lines and go visit a, you know, a Planned Parenthood where in a state where abortion is legal, have we gone to CVS and purchased menstrual pads? Right? Did we tell our period tracking app that we didn't get our period and then we got it Again? All of that is circumstantial. For a prosecutor that we terminated a pregnancy or potentially so, so I, I,  Susan Stone: This sounds so big brother, Orwellian. Are you trying to say that you think there's gonna be a tracker on young women in their ages of like 15, 16 to 30? I mean, it just seems outrageous. I mean, I, I can't imagine that an individual woman thinking about going about their business, regardless of whether they're gonna have an abortion, but I'm just talking in general. Are you saying there's like a, some sort of geo tracker or that the government is watching every young woman? Danielle Citron: Yes. Right now, Look at your phone. Do you, If you bring your phone with me, like you have your phone, right? Mm-hmm. , you've got apps on your phone. If a young woman, girl, woman brings a phone with her to a clinic, her, her phone tells the story of where she's been. There are 40 data brokers whose focus is location that as they track everywhere you go. And those data brokers right now, so I'm not kidding when I say right now data brokers have contracts with law enforcement, the state, local, and federal level. Those location data brokers right now are selling that information. Kristina Supler: That is just wild.  That's.  Danielle Citron: Wow, that makes sense. So I don't, I'm not suggesting that like law enforcement has placed a, this will sound very tin hatty. I'm not suggesting that there's a chip on you, but your phone. and we love our phones of course, and the Supreme Court is recognized in Riley that like our phone is an extension of our souls, right? Mm-hmm. , it knows more about us than our diaries did in our homes. This is this Rob Justice Roberts speaking about a Fourth Amendment decision with regard to our cell phones and needing a warrant to get into our cell phone. Well, our phone is leaking data all day long about us to advertisers, marketers, and in turn to data brokers. So, So  Kristina Supler: enforcement. Sorry to interrupt, I'm just, I. Fascinating.  Susan Stone: I'm like 'Mic Drop!'  Kristina Supler: Well, and, and we do criminal defense work. And so without getting too deep into the Fourth Amendment and probable cause and warrants and all that, I'm just curious because I, I, I did not know this. I've learned, uh, some really, really valuable information. Once law enforcement purchases this data, like what do they do with it? Just put it in a database that they cruise through  Susan Stone: or, or do they, They send it to a prosecutor to take it to a grand jury.  Danielle Citron: Yeah, and they can use it. I mean, what I think I'm most worried about is the use of the purchase data to to tell a story in a search warrant. That you then go and get, you know, then a so found probable cause and issued by a judge, and then you use that search warrant to go get the person's communications. Mm-hmm. , right? That their text messages and emails, and we did see that in the Nebraska case, right? Where there was evidence that was used as the basis of a search warrant that then they got text between a mom and a daughter. Their, their Facebook text messages to each other, in which they were talking about getting sort of abortion medicine. So I do worry that information about our location can be used as the circumstantial evidence and basis for a search warrant that then is used to get the communications that we think, gosh, that's the most protected right, are electronic communications. Not only in real time, but then subsequently in storage that you least need, you know, a warrant for. That what makes it easy to get then a warrant is all that circumstantial evidence that's being sold to data brokers. And in terms to  Kristina Supler: law enforcement, I mean, you wanna tell the, the story of your day. I mean, for me it's, it's, it's, look at my Google search history. What did I do all day?  Susan Stone: Well, you know, normally I would say, Kristina, there's nothing juicy on there. But the fact is we represent students involved in sexual assault cases and sometimes we Google things that for professional reasons that how do people know that when we Google consent in different states that it's for our work and not personal. Danielle Citron: Beautifully said. No, no, no. That is, That's so well said. All this is so taken out of context. Mm-hmm. that our searches, you know, we Think they do tell a story of exactly what we're thinking. But as you noted, so well, you're thinking about a case you're working on. Let's say you searched for, you're representing a ter, someone accused of, of a crime related to terrorism. You know, you could, in your practice, why not? Absolutely. And you Right, of course, Right. You're searching bomb making instructions, you know, because it's part of the work that you're doing of the client, right? But we're gonna attribute it to you. Right? So I think you, it's a really wonderfully wonderful example to show how, people often say we have nothing to hide. As my colleague Dan Solov has written a whole book, Nothing to Hide, It's nonsense. We have all have something to hide, and B, it's all taken outta context. So you know what you're searching tells the story of your clients. It tells the story of. Own life and privacy is ours. We shouldn't be have to be having anything to do with hiding. Well, you know what? Or having it framed that way. Right.  Susan Stone: Danielle, you just, actually, I was gonna ask you the question and you answered it. Why should people care? So I'm gonna go to the next thought. Going off of what we've been talking about, big social media companies like Twitter and Facebook and getting people banned off of those platforms.  Let's just talk. Andrew Tate, Kanye West. I know when I heard what Kanye did, it was really upsetting to me. Yeah. And I know that there are mental health issues and battles that he's having, but still the impact on the listener not to sound like a teen. I was triggered. I, I, it was really difficult. How do you balance First Amendment rights with and free speech with saying to these platform? Y you gotta cut it out. You can't, You gotta do a better job monitoring speech and cut it at the path,  Kristina Supler: or just protecting intimate privacy.  Danielle Citron: Yeah, so what's really, I think, gratifying in my work with companies is that they're not First Amendment actors. They're private companies. They curate their communities. Their community guidelines sort of express their values and priorities. And of course we know their data surveillance hubs, , right? How do they make their monies advertising? But at the same time, they're hosting communities and because they're not the government, they can prohibit and ban hate speech. Right. Defined a speech that demeans, that dehumanize, that's incites violence against, uh, members of a group because of their membership right. In that group. And that is subordinating and dehumanizing. And so that is the, I think, gratifying part of my job is that because I'm not advising the government constrained by the First Amendment. I can say to companies, You know what, Hate speech creates an environment in which there's permission to discriminate against attack, abused torment, physically attack individuals, right? Hate speech, we know leads to murder. And so I, I. You know, you asked about the First Amendment and its role in toggling through and dealing with all types of speech. And the first example was hate speech and, Kanye's remarks about, you know, Jewish individuals. And then the question about intimate privacy. And I've been lucky to work with companies that wanna tackle intimate privacy violations. and in part because when she was the attorney general Kamala Harris, Enlisted me to advise her for privacy on privacy for two years, and then to work together on her, what she called the cyber exploitation task force. And we brought together 50 companies in a basement room. in, in the AG's office. Right. And in California, in San Francisco. And this is 2015, February, 2015 before Google and Bing their view is we don't touch speech on our search engines. And many of these companies were like, Sorry, we're not gonna band on consensual pornography. And after we broke into working groups and, public pressure came to bear. And essentially, so in June of 2015, Google and Bing announced that they're gonna dein index. Non-consensual, intimate images and searches of people's names, and that's so much what victims wanted. And companies like, as Twitter, YouTube Facebook you know, you name it, sort of Reddit jumps on the bandwagon and says, Yeah, we're banning it as well. So, intimate privacy violations. Uh, you can tackle them under the First Amendment that as we have at the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, we worked with state lawmakers across the country and there are now 48 laws DC and two territories that criminalize the practice, Unfortunately, as misdemeanors, but their laws on the books. And in five states that have gotten to the state's highest court, all five laws were upheld. They ran them through the crucible of strict scrutiny and the court said, These are constitutional laws, right? They're narrow, they get at a compell. Interest in protecting from harm Individuals who nude photos have been posted without consent. It's the least restrictive means available so we can tackle it even under the first amendment right, intimate privacy violations, we can regulate. Just following up, hope I answered that. They're both two good questions and I wanna make sure I answered both of them. You did great job  Kristina Supler: and, and I'd like to follow up even more so. So in our practice we are, it, it is not uncommon for us to meet with students and parents whose lives have been just decimated because various content has made its way to the internet. Susan Stone: I mean, cancel culture is kids, uh, throw up the word, This kid is a racist. This kid is a rapist. And immediately when other students read it, they believe it. They don't consider, Well, what's the source? Who's saying it? If you read it, ergo,. It must be true.  Kristina Supler: One of the most difficult conversations we have with these students and parents, people's whose lives have been turned upside down, they say, Make it stop. Make it stop. And someone's, someone must be held responsible. This can't go on and on. And we have to unfortunately explain that there's, there's laws and protections and immunity for these, these platforms and it's, it's really difficult for these families. Can you tell us, in your book you write about section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Tell us a little bit about the immunity for some of these platforms based on the content, because I know this issue of content on the internet, we wrestle with it every day. And, and in particular, I'd like to add, can you frame it in a way that parents can get a nugget of what they can do if their child's being canceled online?  Danielle Citron: Okay, so, so first things first, just to kind of emphasize the point that when information is posted online is my, um, I, I interviewed 60 people for my book from around the world, and what resonated for every story for story, right, the posting of nude photos without permission was that like, it was like an incurable disease that no matter when you Googled yourself, there probably would be more nude photos posted about you. Mm-hmm. , that it was impossible to get that content taken down. And you might say, Okay, how is that possible? And this goes to our question about Section 230. There's a federal law passed by Congress in 1996 which at the time was designed to encourage, they called them Interactive Computer Services, but you know, online providers from cleaning up the. Right. So the deal that these two congressmen struck, then Congressmen Ron Whited and Congressman Chris Cox, was that they said, Listen, we're gonna provide a legal shield and immunity from being sued. We're not gonna treat you like you've been publishing or speaking content that somebody else posts. We're gonna let you leave up or take down information. And they framed it as thinking about companies as good Samaritans who'd be filtering and blocking offensive content, Danielle, to the statute.  Susan Stone: That is not how I view Section 230 to today.  Danielle Citron: Today, Of course. Yeah. No, no. Let me explain. So that's the explain, you know, that's how Chris Cox and Rod whiten like frame the statute. Whoa. Right. Second mic drop . And how it's been interpreted there. Two provisions and, and, and probably in your world, you're focusing on the leave up provision. It's been interpreted really broadly to mean that if you leave up information that's illegal, you're free from liability. Even if you've encouraged it, even if you've solicited it, even if you know for sure and you keep it up despite the fact that people have given you proof that it's untrue, it's, it's not what you want. Non-consensual, intimate imagery, no matter. These sites enjoy immunity from responsibility. So that means that when you go to TikTok and there is a, a video created by someone that repost, let's say non-consensual intimate imagery or that repeats lies about someone that are untrue, that ruin their reputation, that the company can. Well, they, they'll accept complaints about it, but they don't have to take it down, and you can't sue them to take it down because of section 230. Now, TikTok has a very comprehensive community guidelines, and I'm working on those guidelines. Right. But let's say we're not talking about a TikTok. We're talking about four chan. We're talking about a sub-reddit. Right, and  Susan Stone: which is getting more popular. The sub-reddit. Danielle Citron: That's right. Re the subreddits are on fire with non-consensual intimate imagery and lots of abuse and the company just ignores complaints. Right. At least I've reported myself non, and I'm literally have nothing to do with the people in the photos. It's so clear from the photos. These subreddits are totally devoted to non-consensual intimate imagery. And they don't care. And they just say, Sorry, you, we haven't violated the, you haven't violated the community guidelines and therefore we're gonna keep it up.  So that's what, you know, you ask like, how is it that content that destroys people's lives can remain online and that individuals have no recourse. And the answer is that the party in the best position to minimize the damage to make it stop. Not to prevent what's harm, the harm that's happened, but to make the harm stop from continuing. Those parties have been understood very broadly to be immune from responsibility. And so the platform can get request letter. Plea after plea and ignore those pleas to take down content, even though that content is destroying the life of a minor, even though that content is invading intimate privacy and cruel and horrific ways, they can just ignore it. Uh, and there are sites whose whole purpose, so there are 9,500 sites whose per purpose is abuse. That is, they focus on intimate image violations like they're called hidden cam, hidden camera. They're not that like sophisticated Mr. Deep fakes. Those sites, even though they've solicited users. To encourage them to post intimate images that they is not, that's not consensually posted. Even though they have received complaints from victims. Please take it down. Um, this is destroying my life. They can ignore it and enjoy immunity from responsibility. So I hope that helps illustrate just how broad this immunity is, right? Even sites whose business model is illegality, intimate privacy violations there, get off scott free. .  Kristina Supler: That's wild. What can we do short of lobbying to change the law? Danielle Citron: We gotta change the law. . Okay. Join me in the fight, right? Absolutely. With folks on the hill, right? Both Democrats and Republicans Senate in house on proposals, uh, in my pitch and, and. I've been somewhat successful but not as successful as I had hoped is to exclude from the immunity provision. Ban Samaritans. Sites that encourage solicitor keep up intimate privacy violations, they shouldn't enjoy the, should not enjoy the immunity and that otherwise for the everyday, companies that are trying but at scale, it's hard that they should have duties of care to address intimate privacy violations and other content that amounts to cyber stalking. Do you know, and the Congress  Susan Stone: I want to ask a question because a lot of these kids, when they call someone out for what they perceive as a bad act, They don't see themselves as bad Samaritans. In fact, they think it's their duty if they hear something to let the world know. And so it seems like there's a, a shift in culture as to what information should be spread. I mean, I know that I was raised with the concept of if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it. And if you don't know for sure really don't say it. But that's not the culture today. Don't you think we need to do a cultural shift on fact checking, be more skeptical? I mean, I think that's, It's hard at the  Kristina Supler: root because on the one hand we've had to work for so many years. Danielle Citron: That's right.  Kristina Supler: To encourage students and individuals of all ages to speak up and speak out about injustices. But yet now we've had this big shift and it's, you know, you have to ask, has the pendulum swung too far in terms of people speaking up and speaking out about what they perceive to be injustice? Susan Stone: That's a really nice context. How did we get here? And we got here because everyone was so silenced. Good point .  Danielle Citron: Yep. No, that's right. And I think the first thing, and I, and I imagine you're doing this in your work all the time and in your practice, is talking to parents about teaching their kids about how not only they should protect themselves, but crucially protect other people. And think about privacy for me as privacy for they. That is, we're all in this together and we've gotta think about how to be better digital citizens and think, as you said, really. Before.  Kristina Supler: Oh, I like that. How to be a better digital citizen.  Susan Stone: I like that. Love that. I, We're gonna steal that line cause we, we might have to, of course. Did you copyright that one if not one. I,  Danielle Citron: I have an article called Intermediaries and Hate Speech Fostering Digital Citizenship for Information Age. And it came out in the LAR review in, in 2011. And it was about how we teach our kids and how intermediaries mean platforms can be a part of the conversation about hate speech and, and what that means. Check that out. That's a great article. Citizen. Yeah, so it's a BU law review. It was like July, 2011. No, feel free, we all should talk about digital citizenship, however you wanna conceive of it but, I've conceived of it is how we think about our own ourselves and our duties to other people. And how we wanna make sure everyone can get the most out of online, you know, life that's networked. There's no other place, cyberspace. It's in us, all of us all the time. And that we have to think about ways to make it a place where we can, a thrive. And sometimes that means being really careful about what we share. And sometimes it does mean speaking out because for far too long, This is the lesson of the Me Too movement is that, there has been silence around sexual assault, and sadly, who gets hit and burn burns are the victims. You saw that in the Johnny Depp, Amber Hearst defamation trial, that it's still, to this day, misogyny is alive and well and living and breathing and instilled by its victims. Right? So it also, of course, if you're falsely accused of, so. It absolutely is earth shattering. So I think what is great is that cuz you're in touch with parents and students is to teach them about their responsibilities as digital citizens. Not their entitlements, but their responsibilities.  Susan Stone: I, We have to end on that note, even though I wanna talk to you about more things. There is, that is so poignant.. And so helpful, and I can't thank you enough. And I feel like the three of us have more collaboration in our future. I see some synergies in what we do, so thank you. Danielle Citron: Oh gosh. Thank you, Kristina Supler: Danielle. Thank you so much for joining us today. And for our listeners, check out her recent book, The Fight for Privacy, Protecting Dignity, Identity, and Love in the Digital Age.

Question: Is a driver “seized” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when a police officer in a marked police cruiser drivers slowly past a parked vehicle at night, backs up, pulls in behind the vehicle while activating the patrol car's blue lights, blocks the driver's exit, and then remains in the police cruiser approximately one minute while checking Defendant's license plate? Answer: Yes, according to the recent Court of Appeals decision in State v. Eagle. In today's episode, Jake analyzes the Court's decision and the impact on vehicle stops involving an impaired driver.   Highlights: Listen as Jake reviews the key facts involved in State v. Eagle. Discover how the Court leans on public policy to support its holding in this case and how the Court's reasoning can be used in your cases where the State is arguing that a consensual encounter has occurred. Uncover the Court's safety concerns in the context of the free-to-leave test. Hear Jake discuss the way in which the Court looks through the perspective of the Defendant in its conclusion and why you should take this approach in your closing argument.

Riki Wilchins, Executive Director at TrueChild and author of Read My Lips: Sexual Subversion & the End of Gender and Genderqueer, joins Dr. Vanessa Weaver to speak about the state of transgender rights in the United States in the 21st century.  In this Episode·      A brief introduction to Riki Wilchins and their work, including the founding of GenderPAC, the first transgender rights advocacy group in the United States·      How the overturning of Roe v. Wade by the U.S. Supreme Court has created a precedent for transgender Americans' rights to privacy under the Fourth Amendment to be violated, including the right to seek gender-affirming healthcare·      The increased attacks on trans employees and what businesses can do to protect and support them·      How Generation Z is responding to the increase in attacks on transgender folks, including trans youth and their parents by the media and politicians·      Gender pronouns, microaggressions towards trans people, how Wilchins incorporates trans inclusivity and intersectionality in their DEI work Resources·      Riki Wilchins·      TrueChild·      Dr. Vanessa Weaver·      Alignment Strategies·      Genderqueer: Voices from Beyond the Sexual BinaryFollow Us on Social MediaWorkin' It Out·      LinkedIn·      Facebook ·      Instagram·      Twitter Alignment Strategies·      LinkedIn·      Facebook·      Twitter Diversity and Inclusion Television·      LinkedIn·      Facebook  

Hey everybody, I'm Joe Miller and here's what's going on in the world of tech law & policy this week. New coalition pushes to make DMs safe   Let's face it, DM's, whether they're encrypted or not, are no longer safe – if they ever were. Now, following the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs overturning Roe v. Wade, law enforcement in states in which abortion is now illegal have been obtaining search warrants that require social media companies, like Facebook which recently gave police a Nebraska teen's personal conversation she'd had with her mom on WhatsApp regarding an abortion the teen allegedly had. There's an open letter you can sign that's hosted by the Fight for the Future Education Fund, which you can find in the show notes — it's a petition for social media companies to set end-to-end encryption on messaging apps as the default, rather than leaving them open to virtual surveillance not envisioned by the framers when they drafted the Fourth Amendment.   Virtual surveillance is out of control    And virtual, commercial surveillance is out of control across-the-board, which is likely the reason why the Federal Trade Commission extended the comment period for its advanced notice of proposed ruling on commercial surveillance. Should the FTC write new rules governing cybersecurity and surveillance? Well, you can weigh in until November 21st.   And what's an example of commercial surveillance that advocates and the FTC are concerned about? One example is the way in which customers can now surveil delivery workers in ways that weren't possible before, which Data & Society argues in a new report has turned porches and front door steps into workplaces. And we have a link to that report in the show notes as well.   Labor Department moves to prevent misclassifying gig workers   And the Labor Department has announced a proposed rule designed to limit the extent to which companies may classify gig workers as independent contractors. Many of these workers are doing gig work as their primary source of income, which effectively makes them full-time employees – they are contractors in name only.  The proposed Labor Department rule sets forth a new test for determining whether a gig worker is a contractor or employee – namely whether the worker is in business for themselves, or whether the employee's work is “integral” to the company's business. So under the proposed rule, a company like Uber would need to classify drivers as full-time employees rather than independent contractors so these workers can avail themselves of the health and other benefits companies often reserve only for their full-time employees. AP poll: majority of public thinks misinformation is harmful   Finally, a new AP poll finds that most Americans are finding it more difficult to know what they should believe. We're talking about 91% of adults finding misinformation to be a problem – with 80% of Democrats and 70% of Republicans finding that misinformation contributes to political polarization.    And the Texas representative for San Antonio Joaquin Castro, along with several Hispanic groups, including the National Hispanic Media Coalition, are warning about rampant misinformation targeting Latino communities that's often disseminated on chat apps like WhatsApp. This is happening amidst a new Washington Post-Ipsos poll that found Latinos, while 63% overall still support Democrats – that number is actually declining because Democrats now hold only a 27 point lead over Republicans, compared to 40 percent in the years leading up to President Biden's election.  To go deeper, you can find links to all of these stories in the show notes. Stay safe, stay informed, have a great week. Ciao.

Bloomberg - FTC Sues Mobile Data Broker Over Abortion Location Data Sale https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-29/ftc-sues-mobile-data-broker-over-abortion-location-data-sales?sref=P6Q0mxvj&leadSource=uverify%20wallVice - Data Broker Is Selling Location Data of People Who Visit Abortion Clinics https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7vzjb/location-data-abortion-clinics-safegraph-planned-parenthoodForbes - Black Lives Matter Protestors Tracked by Secretive Phone Location Technology https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2020/06/26/secretive-phone-tracking-company-publishes-location-data-on-black-lives-matter-protesters/?sh=77520f5f4a1eAP - Tech Tool Offers Police ‘Mass Surveillance on a Budget' https://apnews.com/article/technology-police-government-surveillance-d395409ef5a8c6c3f6cdab5b1d0e27efAP - Across the US, Police Offers Abuse Confidential Databases https://apnews.com/article/699236946e3140659fff8a2362e16f43Wired - WhatsApp Has Shared Your Data with Facebook for Years Actually https://www.wired.com/story/whatsapp-facebook-data-share-notification/Gizmodo - Rights Groups Say the Pentagon is Buying its Way Around the Fourth Amendment https://gizmodo.com/rights-groups-say-pentagon-buys-freedom-from-fourth-ame-1849604210Gizmodo - The American Data Privacy Act Would Be a Bipartisan Triumph - If It Could Pass https://gizmodo.com/can-american-data-privacy-protection-act-pass-1849413911Gizmodo - Congresswoman Urges FTC to Investigate Newly Revealed Police Software Surveilling Americans' Movements https://gizmodo.com/congresswoman-ftc-to-investigate-fog-data-science-softw-1849547432Brookings - The FTC Can Rise to the Privacy Challenge, but Not Without Help from Congress https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2019/08/08/the-ftc-can-rise-to-the-privacy-challenge-but-not-without-help-from-congress/Berkman Klein Center and Minnesota Law Review - Understanding Chilling Effects https://cyber.harvard.edu/story/2021-06/understanding-chilling-effectsPEN America - Chilling Effects: NSA Surveillance Drives US Writers to Self-Censor https://pen.org/research-resources/chilling-effects/ 

In a recent article, Eric Cervone explains why some members of Congress are pushing back against the practice of law enforcement agencies buying location tracking data from cell phone providers. The information can provide locations of where someone has been (or possibly is) without a warrant. The discussion looks at the conflict between privacy rights and the extent of police surveillance and information gathering on any person. Read his article here: https://www.theblaze.com/news/senators-seeking-to-reign-in-law-enforcements-cell-phone-tracking-abilities

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – Most people recognize that the Fourth Amendment protects your privacy. Actually, it is a tool to protect you from unreasonable searches and seizures. The story about why we needed this protection is an important one, and the hero at the center of this story is an attorney by the name of James Otis...

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – Most people recognize that the Fourth Amendment protects your privacy. Actually, it is a tool to protect you from unreasonable searches and seizures. The story about why we needed this protection is an important one, and the hero at the center of this story is an attorney by the name of James Otis...

OVI is probably the most complex area of law. And here's what I mean by that. • If you get an OVI, it immediately implicates Fourth Amendment issues. In other words, there was a stop, a seizure, and an arrest most often. • • And all those things must be justified under the Fourth Amendment. And there's an entire body of law in the Fourth Amendment that's developed around drinking and driving traffic stops and arrests. And then here in Ohio, we have field sobriety testing. So field sobriety tests involve administrative regulations. They also involve what I call pseudoscience. https://player.captivate.fm/collection/21d01e8c-1655-4a62-aa72-331a1abb5f47 (Here is a link to the DUI 360 series I mentioned in the podcast.)

Institute For Justice lawyer Josh Windham describes two similar cases that involve law enforcement (conservation agents, in this case) going on to privaye property for patrol purposes. In one case, the agents st up cameras on the private property without any warrants involved. Windham explains why IJ, on Fourth Amendment grounds, got involved and sued the state.

In this episode of the Tech Policy Press podcast, we're going to explore how law enforcement and other government agencies in the United States acquire data drawn from commercial data brokers for investigative purposes, and the questions raised by these practices. This is an issue that is still at question in the nation's courts and is under active discussion on Capitol Hill. For instance, this summer the House Judiciary Committee https://techpolicy.press/bipartisan-support-for-fourth-amendment-is-not-for-sale-act-at-house-judiciary-hearing/ (hosted a hearing) it titled https://judiciary.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=4983 (Digital Dragnets: Examining the Government's Access to Your Personal Data). At the hearing, experts witnesses testified that government agencies at all levels, including federal agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Department of Defense (DOD), as well as state and local law enforcement are collecting a massive amount of personal data on American citizens, sidestepping constitutional protections against unwarranted search and seizure provided in the Fourth Amendment. The hearing included discussion of the proposed https://techpolicy.press/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/BILLS-117hr2738ih.pdf (Fourth Amendment is Not For Sale Act), which would restrict government entities from engaging in such practices. But while the courts and Congress deliberate, government agencies are acquiring this information from software providers, including one such firm that was the subject of a recent investigative report from the Associated Press titled https://apnews.com/article/technology-police-government-surveillance-d395409ef5a8c6c3f6cdab5b1d0e27ef (Tech tool offers police ‘mass surveillance on a budget). Today, I'm joined by the two reporters who spent months trying to understand how a little known company in Virginia goes about acquiring commercially available data and selling it to police in departments across the country- global investigative journalist Garance Burke and national investigative reporter Jason Dearen.

When a government agent stands at your door asking to come in, do you know what your rights are? What would you do if that agent tries to enter your house illegally? If that day comes, the difference between liberty and incarceration may well depend on how well you know your rights and how prepared you are to assert and defend them.

Hour 3 -  Happy Wednesday! Here's what Nick Reed covers this hour: Attorney General Merrick Garland has issued a memo to Justice Department personnel reiterating the department's policy of prohibiting communication with members of Congress. Former President Donald Trump's attorney said Tuesday that the former president will likely challenge the legality of the FBI's search of his home based on the Fourth Amendment. The Biden Justice Department late Tuesday told a federal judge it opposes naming a special master to review evidence taken from Donald Trump's Florida home, alleging there may have been an effort to conceal classified documents after the president's lawyers received a grand jury subpoena earlier this summer. Former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley said Tuesday on "America's Newsroom" that the Justice Department must investigate the leak of her nonprofit's tax filings.

Below are several highlights from Jim's look at news events from this past week. Stories included-----According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, President Biden's student debt forgiveness plan will cost U.S. taxpayers between 440 and 600 billion dollars over the next 10 years.----Larry Summers, a top Democrat economist, warns that Biden's debt forgiveness plan will cause even more inflation.----Nancy Pelosi said in 2021 that the president does not have the power of debt forgiveness. Instead, this has to be an act of Congress.----U.S. magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart rejected the Department of Justice's argument Monday to keep the Mar-a-Lago search warrant affidavit under wraps saying the government has the burden of proof to show why parts of the affidavit must be sealed. Today the Justice Department filed its proposed redactions to its affidavit that explains the reason for the unprecedented search of Trump's Florida estate, but it's unclear when or if parts of the affidavit will be made public.----After filing a motion to halt the Justice Department review of items from the Mar-a-Lago raid, former President Trump fired off a statement denouncing the violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.----WMAR TV -Baltimore's ABC affiliate- said the U.S. Postal Service facility found a tray of undelivered mail that included 26 blank ballots from 2020. ----Some 5,000 Texans who used a P.O. box as a voter registration address, will likely be able to cast a ballot in the state's mid-term election after a federal judge blocked a 2021 state election law.

Below are several highlights from Jim's look at news events from this past week. Stories included-----According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, President Biden's student debt forgiveness plan will cost U.S. taxpayers between 440 and 600 billion dollars over the next 10 years.----Larry Summers, a top Democrat economist, warns that Biden's debt forgiveness plan will cause even more inflation.----Nancy Pelosi said in 2021 that the president does not have the power of debt forgiveness. Instead, this has to be an act of Congress.----U.S. magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart rejected the Department of Justice's argument Monday to keep the Mar-a-Lago search warrant affidavit under wraps saying the government has the burden of proof to show why parts of the affidavit must be sealed. Today the Justice Department filed its proposed redactions to its affidavit that explains the reason for the unprecedented search of Trump's Florida estate, but it's unclear when or if parts of the affidavit will be made public.----After filing a motion to halt the Justice Department review of items from the Mar-a-Lago raid, former President Trump fired off a statement denouncing the violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.----WMAR TV -Baltimore's ABC affiliate- said the U.S. Postal Service facility found a tray of undelivered mail that included 26 blank ballots from 2020. ----Some 5,000 Texans who used a P.O. box as a voter registration address, will likely be able to cast a ballot in the state's mid-term election after a federal judge blocked a 2021 state election law.

In this sample from the CAFE Insider podcast, Preet Bharara and Joyce Vance break down former President Donald Trump's court filing challenging the FBI's Mar-a-Lago search. Why does Trump take different positions in court than he does in public? And do Trump's legal arguments in the motion hold water or are they tailored for politics and public opinion? In the full episode, Preet and Joyce discuss:  – The strength of Trump's challenges to the search warrant on Fourth Amendment grounds;  – The likelihood that the court grants Trump's request to appoint a special master to review the documents seized from Mar-a-Lago;   – The debate over whether the judge should unseal a redacted version of the search warrant affidavit over DOJ's opposition; and – Senator Lindsey Graham's challenge of a subpoena to testify before a Georgia grand jury that is investigating alleged interference in the 2020 election. Stay informed. For analysis of the most important legal and political issues of our time, try the membership for one month for $1.00: www.cafe.com/insider. You'll get access to full episodes of the podcast, and other exclusive benefits. This podcast is brought to you by CAFE Studios and Vox Media Podcast Network.  REFERENCES & SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS:  In the Matter of the Search of Mar-a-Lago, U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida, motion for judicial oversight and additional relief, 8/22/22 “Trump Had More Than 300 Classified Documents at Mar-a-Lago,” NYT, 8/23/22 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

What is President's Trump's search warrant about?  Presidential records and privilege?  Nuclear codes?  FBI records?  Espionage?  Executive Privilege?  Professor and former career law clerk for the U.S Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit and former federal prosecutor William Shipley join the pod to discuss DOJ's reason for raiding Mar-a-Lago. The President Trump search warrant case is now a battle between the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment as the media wants to see the probable cause affidavit that led to the search warrant.  As we all know, last Thursday Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart ruled that some of the probable cause affidavit, which is the reasoning of why the search warrant was granted, will be released.  The Government has until August 25, 2022, to file its proposed redactions to the search warrant.  After that, Reinhart will make his ruling and he will likely be appealed by one side or the other. Make no mistake about it, this is a DOJ political prosecution that brings us back to the days of Spy Gate.  The Trump search warrant started with alleged classified documents and nuclear secrets, but the search warrant never spoke of this.  Instead, the search warrant spoke of presidential records.  What does this mean, this was likely a setup since Trump left the White House. The Deep State exists, and this case will play out in public for all to see.  Pay attention – DOJ has gone from false FISA warrants to Spy Gate to now raiding Mar-a-Lago, the home of our 45th President, for nefarious reasons.

Trump sues the Biden Regime over the Mar-a-Lago raid, says his Fourth Amendment rights have been violated, Rand Paul warns Fauci's Retirement won't stop a ‘full-throated investigation', and Darren Beattie joins us for his exclusive reaction

Former President Donald Trump is suggesting he may be preparing a lawsuit following the raid on his Mar-a-Lago residence, which Attorney General Merrick Garland “personally approved.” Trump is alleging the raid was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution, which forbids illegal searches and seizures. In other news, Dr. Robert Malone is filing a defamation lawsuit against the Washington Post, alleging that the news outlet published false information about his career and the validity of his warnings over the COVID-19 vaccinations. In this live Q&A with Crossroads host Joshua Philipp, we'll discuss these stories and others, and answer questions from the audience. ⭕️ Stay up-to-date with Josh with the Crossroads NEWSLETTER

Trump to file 'major motion' in response to Mar-a-Lago raid which violated his Fourth Amendment rights, Majority of Americans now see FBI as ‘Joe Biden's Personal Gestapo', Fauci RESIGNS, and Kash Patel joins the show to react to all of the Breaking News

Trump invokes Fourth Amendment for latest legal defense

STOP Capias WarrantAsk to see a physical copy so as to confirm a valid arrest warrant against you.It is possible to stop an arrest warrant without having to go to jail. Ask to see a physical copy where the police or sheriff actually have a valid arrest warrant against you. Stop deputy clerk from signing a warrant. Clearly established constitutional law has required individualized probable cause to justify an arrest. The Fourth Amendment "cannot be undercut or avoided by simply pointing to the fact that coincidentally there exists probable cause to arrest. An arrest "must be supported by probable cause particularized to that person.A valid warrant contains information such as an explanation of probable cause, police affidavits, a specific description of the suspect, and an issuance from a judge. Affidavits explain the grounds on which the police are basing their assumptions – usually their own observations or information from witnesses. If the alleged arrest warrant does not contain this information.Capias WarrantA Capias warrant is a court issued detention order for either payment of fines or to compel you to make your scheduled court appearance. Capias warrants can be used in criminal, traffic, civil and family law courts.A “Capias pro fine” warrant is issued when someone loses a judgement and doesn't pay the restitution ordered by the court.After a capias warrant is issued, your name is added to the law enforcement warrant database. Police usually do not immediately come to find you, but you can be detained any time police interact with you.Once arrested, you'll usually have to post bail before you can be released and given a new court date. If you previously posted bail, that bail is forfeited unless your criminal defense lawyer persuade the judge otherwise.Writ of Bodily AttachmentA writ of bodily attachment (also referred to as “body attachment warrant” or “writ of body attachment”) is a court ordered warrant for civil arrest for civil contempt. Body attachment warrants are usually issued for failure to fulfill a civil court order.The writ of bodily attachment is most commonly ordered for:Failure to appear when ordered in civil court.Failure to pay alimony or child support.

Attorney Eric Daigle returns to the studio to discuss geolocation data, how it works, and how geofencing is used both commercially and by law enforcement. Eric reviews guiding decisions such as Katz v. United States, Kyllo v. United States, and Carpenter v. United States to highlight the implications of geofencing and geofencing warrants on the Fourth Amendment and expectation of privacy.

Ex-President Trump's residence - or is it his club? - at Mar-A-Lago was searched, and US government papers seized, pursuant to a search warrant which has since been made public.  Warrants, papers, searches, seizures - all words found in the Fourth Amendment.  We take the opportunity to upend what every American thinks they understand: that searches require warrants, that probable cause is a must, that failure to heed these dictates means the fruits of the search will be suppressed.  Professor Amar presents an entirely different way of thinking about the 4th Amendment, and when he is done, you will wonder how you ever thought about it any other way.  Armed with this understanding, we then turn to Palm Beach and assess the Justice Department's actions in this light.

With every new AI surveillance technology that is adopted and deployed without any regard for privacy, Fourth Amendment rights, and due process, the rights of the citizenry are being marginalized, undermined, and eviscerated. We are now witnessing the rise of digital authoritarianism. Beyond the metaverse and the so-called Eighth Sphere extinction, we need to understand the world governments have already made the decision that Artificial Intelligence will be utilized in a new digital utility called Web 3. Tonight on Ground Zero, Clyde Lewis talks with surveillance expert, Andrew Sternke about WEB 3 - BEWARE THE 8TH SPHERE DIGITAL UTILITY. #GroundZero #ClydeLewis #Web3 https://groundzeromedia.org/8-15-22-web-3/ Ground Zero with Clyde Lewis is live M-F from 7-10pm, pacific time, and streamed for free at groundzero.radio. There is a delayed broadcast on our local Portland affiliate station, KPAM 860, from 9pm-12am, pacific time. For radio affiliates near you, go to talkstreamlive.com. To listen by phone: 717-734-6922. To call into the show: 503-225-0860. The transcript of each episode will be posted after the show at groundzeromedia.org. In order to access Ground Zero's exclusive digital library which includes archived shows, research groups, videos, documents, and more, you must sign up at aftermath.media. Subscriptions start at $7/month. Check out the yearly specials!

Join Attorney Andrew Branca as he hosts 2A Legal Expert Don Kilmer to discuss the recent Supreme Court Second Amendment Bruen decision!Attorney Don Kilmer:Don Kilmer is admitted to the California, Washington, and Idaho Bar Associations. He is also admitted to several federal courts. His federal practice concentrates on the founders' interpretation of the Second Amendment. He has successfully litigated several significant civil rights cases in the federal court system on the First Amendment Freedom of Speech and Association, Fourth Amendment violations by government actors, Fifth Amendment protections, and Eighth Amendment principles. He also represents persons accused of weapons crimes in federal & state court. He advises and represents businesses in the firearms industry and assists those businesses with regulatory hearings and compliance with federal firearm regulations.Don also teaches Constitutional Law, Firearms Law, and Legal Skills at Lincoln Law School of San Jose. He is co-author of the law school case book: Firearms Law and the Second Amendment: Regulation, Rights, and Policy. 3rd Ed. Aspen Publishing.Don lives full time in Idaho and fancies himself a micro-farmer (fruits and vegetables) and marginally competent guitar player.NEW! Law of Self Defense LAW SCHOOL COURSES!First-year law school classes, as Attorney Branca was taught them.First 20 students 50% OFF! MAX 40 students!https://lawofselfdefense.com/lawschoolFREE! Law of Self Defense “HARD TO CONVICT” Webinar!https://hardtoconvict.com/FREE, BUT VERY LIMITED SEATS!FREE LEGAL CONSULTATION!We ONLY consult on legal cases for our Platinum members!BE HARD TO CONVICT, become a Law of Self Defense Platinum member TODAY!http://lawofselfdefense.com/platinumFREE BOOK! “The Law of Self Defense”Physical book, 200+ pages, we just ask that you cover the S&H:http://lawofselfdefense.com/freebookPROUDLY SPONSORED BY CCW SAFE!Provider of Legal Service Memberships (aka “self-defense insurance”)Andrew is personally a member of CCW Safe!Learn more about what they have to offer at:https://lawofselfdefense.com/ccwsafeSave 10% off your first-year membership with code: LOSD10FREE 5-ELEMENTS OF SELF-DEFENSE LAW CHEAT SHEET!Totally free cheat sheet explaining the 5-elements of any claim of self-defense.If you don't understand these five elements you have no idea what legally qualifies as lawful self-defense.PDF download, zero cost:http://lawofselfdefense.com/elementsNOTE: Nothing in today's content represents legal advice. If you are in need of legal advice, please retain competent legal counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.#donkilmer #bruen #secondamendment #2A #gunrights

Off and on from 2006 to 2012, Snowden had worked as a CIA analyst, a subcontractor for the NSA, and several other positions that gave him access to classified NSA information that enabled him to see the true scope of how the US was surveilling its own citizens. Does leaking those docs to the press in 2013 make him a traitor? Or does it make him a hero who opened the eyes of the American public to the dangerous and unconstitutional surveillance our government has been clandestinely carrying out for years? I was familiar with Edward Snowden before this week, and the gist of what he did, but I truly didn't realize the scope of the surveillance and the amount of private data gathered on US citizens who were not accused of any crimes. Are you okay with agents working on behalf of the US government going through your private text messages whenever they want for whatever reason? Emails? Looking through your photos? Combing through your internet browsing history? Monitoring your GPS positioning to determine your travel patterns? Are you okay with Big Brother watching you? If you're not, too bad, because it's already happening. It's BEEN happening for years. This is what Snowden exposed, and he exposed it because it's wildly unethical. The fight for privacy is important because it's a fight for freedom. Is possibly allowing the government to make your existence a little safer worth losing so much of your freedom? We got an interesting one today. Bad Magic Productions Monthly Patreon Donation:  The Bad Magic Charity for July is The National Compassion Fund. Their mission is to give funds to the victims of mass casualty crimes, such as mass shootings and terrorist attacks. We donated   $14,697 with an additional $1,632 going to our forthcoming scholarship fund. To find more or donate yourself, please visit www.nationalcompassion.org TICKETS FOR HOT WET BAD MAGIC SUMMER CAMP!  Go to www.badmagicmerch.comWatch the Suck on YouTube: https://youtu.be/V0_2w5vbgpEMerch: https://www.badmagicmerch.comDiscord! https://discord.gg/tqzH89vWant to join the Cult of the Curious private Facebook Group? Go directly to Facebook and search for "Cult of the Curious" in order to locate whatever happens to be our most current page :)For all merch related questions/problems: store@badmagicproductions.com (copy and paste)Please rate and subscribe on iTunes and elsewhere and follow the suck on social media!! @timesuckpodcast on IG and http://www.facebook.com/timesuckpodcastWanna become a Space Lizard?  Click here: https://www.patreon.com/timesuckpodcastSign up through Patreon and for $5 a month you get to listen to the Secret Suck, which will drop Thursdays at Noon, PST. You'll also get 20% off of all regular Timesuck merch PLUS access to exclusive Space Lizard merch. You get to vote on two Monday topics each month via the app. And you get the download link for my new comedy album, Feel the Heat. Check the Patreon posts to find out how to download the new album and take advantage of other benefits.

THE THESIS: Mitch McConnell is a sickening sell out on self-defense. He said his Bill that attacks the Second Amendment and the Fourth Amendment will not affect the majority of gun owners “in their ‘right' minds.” Does Mitchell really not read the news? The Party calls the following people “terrorists.” parents speaking at school board meetings; people who do not want to get injected with mRNA; people concerned with election security (if they are center-right); people who do not wear face-diapers. This DOJ will abuse red flag laws and the Billion fake dollars Mitchell gave to the school unions will make things worse.  THE SCRIPTURE & SCRIPTURAL RESOURCES:  Psalm 20:7 7 Some trust in chariots and some in horses,     but we trust in the name of the Lord our God. Titus 1:7-14  For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party. 1 Timothy 3:1-13 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? THE NEWS & COMMENT: BLOCK 1 [AUDIO] - Armed robber confronts Dollar Store clerk with gun, clerk shoots him dead. The armed robbers siblings say CLERK shouldn't have brought a gun to work. 15 GOP yeas on the gun bill: Blunt, Burr, Capito, Cassidy, Collins, Cornyn, Ernst, Graham, McConnell, Murkowski, Portman , Romney, Tillis, Toomey, Young Merrick Garland: “The Supreme Court has eliminated an established right that has been an essential component of women's liberty.. The Justice Department strongly disagrees with the Court's decision… DOJ will use every tool at our disposal to protect reproductive freedom.” [AUDIO] - CNN Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin is not happy with SCOTUS' Second Amendment ruling. [AUDIO] - 'It Is Their Fault'! MSNBC's Mystal Blames Supreme Court for Mass Shootings [AUDIO] - KATHY HOCHUL, dictator of New York State: "I would like to point out to the Supreme Court justices, that the only weapons at that time were muskets. I'm prepared to go back to muskets." [AUDIO] -  Kammy Harris: “The Supreme Court ruling today defies The Constitution.” BLOCK 2 Biden FBI raids Trump DOJ official Jeffrey Clark, GOP officials, staffers in multiple states in 'alternate electors' investigation BLOCK 3 But, no one needs a gun to defend themselves, lest they get red flagged . . .  An unhinged protester tried to deploy pepper spray on two peaceful pro-life protesters but the deployment failed. [AUDIO] - “I'm your LGBTQIA+ liaison officer and we are unveiling ... our pride cruiser for the month of June!” See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this case the Court holds that you have no right to sue a federal official, even if a border agent trespasses on your property, knocks you to the ground, and calls the IRS on you for having the gall to file a complaint about it. So if you're keeping track at home, the Court is saying that First Amendment and Fourth Amendment don't actually mean anything.Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon) and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter.If you're not a Patreon member, you're not hearing every episode! To get exclusive Patreon-only episodes, discounts on merch, access to our Slack community, and more, join at patreon.com/fivefourpod. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Emma hosts Devon Carbado, professor at the UCLA School of Law, to discuss his recent book Unreasonable: Black Lives, Police Power, and the Fourth Amendment. First, Emma runs through recent news from Ginni Thomas' communications with John Eastman about overturning the election, to the Fed raising interest and likely triggering a recession just to undermine worker power and the effect of gas price gouging on inflation. Then she's joined by Professor Devon Carbado as they dive right into the relationship between the Fourth Amendment and the police state, as this constitutional statute from 1791 has provided access to and control over Black people and their bodies, first looking at the qualification of “search and seizure” as the only police actions that are protected, to the insanely low standards of what it means for police accostings to be “reasonable,” such as confronting someone in a high crime area. They then dive into the 1968 decision in Terry v. Ohio that affirmed the police's right to stop and frisk without probable cause, provided that they meet the even lower standard of “reasonable suspicion,” setting the stage for one of the least effective and most violating “investigatory” tools, which still maintains its legality even after the NYPD failed to claim reasonable suspicion in Floyd, et al. v City of New York. Next, Professor Carbado walks through the stages of Black oppression in the US and the refusal by the right the understand and acknowledge the history throughout these developments, before he takes on the various levels of policing in this country that put Black people and people of color in more direct confrontation with the police, including the fact that repeated exposure increases the probability of being harmed, the culture of police and their unions, qualified immunity, and the impossibility of holding them to account. Emma and the Professor then look to Whren v United States and the Supreme Court's (including RBG) affirmation of racial profiling, discussing how this decision as well aided the beaurocratization of racism and classism that we saw so clearly in Ferguson, with police fines making up over a quarter of the city's budget. They wrap up the interview by diving deeper into the judicial system's role, how the right's specificity in targeting precedent and setting up legal apparatus like the Federalist Society allows them to stack the courts for their agenda, and what the Left can learn from that. And in the Fun Half: Emma is joined by Matt and Brandon as they take on the complex anti-hero that is Anna Sorokin, as she begins to dip her feet into NFTs, Noah from Tampa debates Emma on why her college athletic takes are exactly right, Bro Flamingo calls in to discuss the downplaying of the 1/6 coup attempt on both the right and left, and they all dive into the idea of Republicans actually being held accountable. Candace Owens comes after parental rights, Eric Adams “reallocates” funding from education to the NYPD, and AOC responds to the fact that she was called out by name by 1/6 rioters. Real estate brokers flaunt their place inside the housing bubble, Kowalski dives into fertilizer and food shortage issues, plus, your calls and IMs! Check out Devon's book here: https://thenewpress.com/books/unreasonable Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here:  https://madmimi.com/signups/170390/join Join the Majority Report Discord! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Support the St. Vincent Nurses today! https://action.massnurses.org/we-stand-with-st-vincents-nurses/ Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Subscribe to Matt's other show Literary Hangover on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/literaryhangover Check out The Nomiki Show on YouTube. https://www.patreon.com/thenomikishow Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out The Letterhack's upcoming Kickstarter project for his new graphic novel! https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/milagrocomic/milagro-heroe-de-las-calles Subscribe to Discourse Blog, a newsletter and website for progressive essays and related fun partly run by AM Quickie writer Jack Crosbie. https://discourseblog.com/ Subscribe to AM Quickie writer Corey Pein's podcast News from Nowhere. https://www.patreon.com/newsfromnowhere  Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattBinder @MattLech @BF1nn @BradKAlsop The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

On today's episode, Dennis speaks with SCT Constitutional Policing and Case Law Instructor Zach Miller to talk about Reasonable Suspicion, Random Plating Inquires and a specific example where technology interfered with the Fourth Amendment. If you like what you are hearing and want to stay in the loop with the latest in Street Cop Training, please follow our Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/StreetCopTraining