Privacy, encryption vs. Surveillance state

[searcher]

 

[searcher]

Maine lobsterman asks the Supreme Court to strike down a rule allowing the government to track his boat 24/7

The case could give the Court a chance to clarify what a "closely regulated" business is and what constitutional protections it enjoys.

reason.com

 

[searcher]

Institute for Justice Applauds Idaho Governor Signing Bill Protecting Private Property from Law Enforcement Searches Without a Warrant - Institute for Justice

ARLINGTON, Va. –Yesterday, Idaho took a major step toward restoring protections for the state’s landowners with Governor Brad Little’s signing of S.1326. The historic, first-of-its […]

ij.org

 

[pmbug]

^^

It's a press release - it's OK to repost the content:

Yesterday, Idaho took a major step toward restoring protections for the state’s landowners with Governor Brad Little’s signing of S.1326. The historic, first-of-its kind new law prohibits most government agents from entering private land that is closed to the public without a warrant, consent, or a recognized emergency, and arrived at the governor’s desk with strong bipartisan support.

“Private land is exactly that; it’s private,” said Alasdair Whitney, Legislative Counsel for the Institute for Justice (IJ). “It should not be treated as open territory for warrantless searches. Idaho has made it clear that if the government wants to step onto private land to investigate or search for wrongdoing, it must first go to a judge and show probable cause. This law protects law-abiding landowners while preserving law enforcement’s ability to do its job the right way.”

Previously, government agents were able to come onto private land under the “open fields doctrine,” a judge-created rule that traces its roots to Prohibition. During Prohibition, government agents prowled for illicit alcohol and stills, including on private lands. In Hester v. United States, federal agents hid on someone’s private land to see if they were selling alcohol and gave chase when they saw his son hand someone a bottle. Despite the grave constitutional stakes, the Supreme Court breezily held in a two-paragraph opinion that the Fourth Amendment did not apply to private land because “the special protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment to the people in their ‘persons, houses, papers, and effects,’ is not extended to the open fields.” In one fell swoop, the court categorically eliminated all Fourth Amendment protections for most privately-owned land in the United States.

Hester’s narrow view of the Fourth Amendment eviscerated Americans’ constitutional rights. Worse, it was based on a false premise: that the “distinction between [open fields] and the house is as old as the common law,” a distinction that was about when private individuals could be charged with burglary, not about when government agents could intrude on private land. Still, the damage was done.

With the signing of S.1326, that error in ruling has been fixed. Idaho has 14 million acres of private land. Before this bill became law, at most 2.9% of that land (just 407,000 acres) was protected from warrantless searches. Now, 100% of that land is protected.

The new law is another example of IJ’s commitment to restoring the right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures under its Project on the Fourth Amendment.