#4th amendment

This is child Abuse.

Maryland sues DHS, Noem over ICE detention facility

Dozens protest potential ICE detention facility in Cabarrus County

Stay Noisy! The more of these we can stop or delay the better!

Here are some ways to help Immigrants and the anti-ICE Protesters:

When Trump sends ICE, the National Guard, and federal troops into a majority-Black city like D.C., that’s not “law and order” — that’s abuse of power. Knowing the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments isn’t optional, it’s survival. Protect your rights, protect your community, protect your future. ✊🏾

TL;DR:

the supreme courts has said that geofencing warrants are under the 4th amendment and would require reasonable amount of suspicion.

Geo fencing is when companies like Google are compeld into giving away information that was available at the time of a crime

Stuff like names and phones numbers near the area

While the search isn’t banned, the search now requires more reasonable cause for a search to be conducted

It’ll now be harder for geofencing to happen and could lead to the practice being banned or dealt with the most precaution

full thing

“The court stopped short of declaring geofence warrants unconstitutional.”

“The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Monday that geofence warrants count as a “search” under the Fourth Amendment, a decision that will likely impact how police departments around the country seek cellphone location data in the future.”

“Geofence warrants compel tech companies like Google to provide information about electronic devices that are present in a given area on a particular date during a specific window of time.

The case, Chatrie v. United States, involved a man who was convicted of robbing a credit union outside Richmond, Virginia, in 2019.”

the process

“Local police used a three-step process to find Okello Chatrie, first requiring Google to produce anonymized location data for all phones within a 150-meter radius of the credit union from 30 minutes before to 30 minutes after the time of the robbery.

In step two, police narrowed down the list from that anonymized data and retrieved more data from phones both inside and outside the geofence for two hours on each side of the robbery.

In the third step, police narrowed it down further, and Google produced names and phone numbers for the people on the list."

the fourth amendment

“The question at hand was whether these geofencing techniques are considered a “search” under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Supreme Court found on Monday that police had conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they acquired Chatrie’s location data from Google “because an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell-phone location information.”

But it didn’t ban the practice completely. Police will now need to show probable cause'

The EFF

EFF Surveillance Litigation Director Andrew Crocker has applauded this, even if to him, it wasn’t far enough

Andrew Crocker has said

“The Court reaffirmed that you have an expectation of privacy in location data that reveals your movements in the physical world, and that even short-term surveillance of these movements is a search subject to the Fourth Amendment, In recent years, police around the country have relied on geofence warrants like the one in this case tens of thousands of times to cast dragnets that violate the privacy of innocent bystanders, all without even targeting a known suspect or device.

Although the Court stopped short of striking down these warrants as inherently unconstitutional, we look forward to pressing lower courts to eliminate these warrants once and for all.”

justice

“Justice Elena Kagan wrote about the cell site location information (CSLI) at issue in the Carpenter case, comparing it to the Chatrie case, where location history was central.”

Kagan had said

“Most cell-phone users have no awareness of CSLI records, and would never try to retrieve them; by contrast, Google users regularly employ Location History as a personal journal,”

Kagan wrote. “In that way, Location History resembles other private materials—e.g., emails, documents, photographs, or calendars—that even if stored on Google’s servers, a user reasonably views as his own and expects to be shielded from the ‘inquisitive eyes’ of the government.”

This goes against 4th Amendment of the Constitution

Misogyny is in your silence