Security → Fourth Amendment shows sign of life...

"FBI Ruse Violated Rights of Vegas Hotel Guest, US Judge Says"

"The FBI violated the rights of a wealthy Malaysian businessman...
Hopefully this will have a trickle down effect.

"The defense lawyers accused the FBI of deceiving a magistrate judge who granted a search warrant by failing to disclose the tactics used to find probable cause, and leaving any reference to the ruse out of investigative reports."

»abcnews.go.com/US/wireSt ··· 30399607

On one hand, if this guy's (Phua) as crooked as the FBI says he is, then sure, play hardball.

On the other, cases like these remind us how much to treasure our Western worldview of rule by law,
and not the whims of one overzealous type with delusions of grandeur.

My 00000010bits

Regards

Absolutely.
The judge, obviously agreeing with your view explained his decision as:
"Permitting the government to create the need for the occupant to invite a third party into his or her home would effectively allow the government to conduct warrantless searches of the vast majority of residences and hotel rooms in America," the judge wrote"

For all the hits that our Bill of Rights have taken since 9-11 this is a meaningful, precedent setting development.

quote:

---

Federal prosecutors conceded mistakes but argued that the government did nothing malicious and had not violated Phua's constitutional rights. Prosecutor Kimberly Frayn argued that Internet service isn't an essential service like electricity, air conditioning or water, and that people in the Caesars Palace villas weren't compelled to invite in the agents disguised as repairmen. "There is not a constitutional right to DSL," she said.

---

The 4th Amendment states that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." There is nothing in there that describes the various subterfuges that might be used by authorities to accomplish an unreasonable search, so the common-sense meaning is that they are all forbidden. Don't these prosecutors take training in Constitutional law? Their philosophy seems increasingly to be to take a shot at anything they can conjure up via some obscure and irrelevant excuse and simply see if it flies in court.

It seems to me that has always been a common prosecutorial tactic. What has become rare these days is a judge willing to take a stand against such actions.

Since when did AIR CONDITIONING become an "essential" service? Heat is essential but air conditioning? That's a questionable "luxury" and should be avoided, even if available, for health reasons unless the temperature is over 88-89. Open a window if you are too warm. Hotels should have ceiling fans. I'd say indoor plumbing is essential and that stupid prosecutor didn't mention it.

It becomes essential to folks who consider it essential. Not everyone wants to sit in a house at 80 or open a window exposing themselves to allergens, my 65 has become an essential service to me.

Depends where one lives. Have you been to Arizona?

It may not be essential to you, but to some, one of whom I know personally. They have no way to cool their body (body thermostat gone haywire) and AC is essential 24/7. Heat is not!

Yep, I fall into that group. I have Multiple System Atrophy and the autonomic dysfunction has caused my body not to sweat normally during heat. I'd rather not suffer a heat stroke, particularly during the summer when it can reach 100+ at times.

I think it's easy to avoid using AC if you live in a coastal environment where you get the cool ocean breeze, like Newport Beach, but for the more inland folks, AC has become more of an essential service - as has internet for most folks.

You can add Hawaii to that list.
Offices/retail space generally have AC but residences often have either no AC or a window unit at best.
Besides the trade winds the cost of electricity plays into that @ 12.10 cents per kWh being the national average with Hawaii @ 33.34 cents per kWh
»www.eia.gov/electricity/ ··· mt_5_6_a

I'd say las vegas gets that hot, and modern construction keeps the heat in. Then again I didn't RTFA

It is easier to beg for forgiveness than to get permission.

Plus, they can do anything they want to get a conviction. Then it is up to the convicted to appeal to get it over turned. Unfortunately the small time people don't have the money to appeal and they have to hope that other parties, like the ACLU, are unlikely to step in and help.

I just finished reading a summary of the Sacco-Vanzetti cases. In those cases, the defendants were ethnic immigrants with radical dissenting political views who were convicted of murder through prosecutorial and judicial misconduct. The 'mainstream' attitude toward Italians, Jews and Irish in the early 20th century was not much unlike that toward Hispanics and Muslims today. The fortunate difference is that America is more sensitive to and informed of such misconduct in the legal system.

In this case, what happened in Vegas did not stay in Vegas.While it's proper to assign responsibility to the government's decision makers, we also need to examine the willingness of private sector entities to allow the privacy and security of U.S. persons.

I'd wager the US district court for the district of Nevada stood up for this guy

A more "conservative" state may possibly have the right angles to call out Washington on these tactics.

Security is a state of mind.

It all flows down... The Noble President even claims to have Professed Constitutional law, and yet his Enduring legacy is to have done it more permanent harm than any other administration, by far, including evading actual judicial process completely, and "they" aren't done, yet, - 'Law, Law, we don't need no stinking law...'....

The previous administration did a bang up job dismantling the Constitution - you can go back to the 50's when Congress decided they never wanted to declare war. So they gavev the presidents after WW2 the ability to start wars without Congressional approval. Frankly, the un-patriot act probably did more harm to the Constitution than any other law in the last 30 years.

Sure, there is a longer history of damage, like you mention.

However, the damage done by the previous administration, some (most?) of it with at least the tacit approval of the then 'loyal opposition', was bad enough, but in a functioning democratic Constitutional tri-part Republic, could have been at the very least seriously mitigated, if not fully reversed (can't give back the time and lives lost, though) by the current "The Most Transparent" and Nobel Administration.

The supposed pendulum swing-back, which was in many cases campaigned and voted for, was very clearly, and cleverly co-opted by a Brand, just as it will be, apparently time, and time again. Well, until its clearer to most here, that it barely matters.

Once the Party nomination was insured, the esteemed then Senator's pledges to filibuster, if needed, attempts at retroactive TelCom immunity, morphed into support for it, instead. That was the tell. It's been downhill for the Rule of Law, and the Constitution, with this Brand, ever since, complete with extra-special Tuesdays.

What _should_, and most certainly could have been at most an abhorrent 8-year "aberration", has now been codified (for the most part), and stamped with the seal of "both" parties (and ever increasingly, stamped "TS", National Security, as well).

The role back turned into push further, and further, and they ain't done yet...

This has coincided with, and been greatly facilitated by, the increasing digitization of almost every facet of life (neonatal-thru-death, including voluntary body/sleep/sex "performance" monitors..), along with an apparent "Give Me Convenience, Or Give Me Death", "free" of course, and narcissistic/exhibitionist/voyeuristic 'path' of much of our society.

And then there are the continuing financial shenanigans.

What ever it was that we had before (h/t B. Franklin), and it would be magnificent to be wrong, "It's all over now, baby blue" (h/t R. A. Zimmerman).

A guy named Dan Carlin has a podcast called Common Sense in which he talks about the systematic dismantling of the 4 Amendment by many administrations. He also has a GREAT podcast series called HardCore History. TuneIn has a bunch of his Common Sense shows- he HATES both parties...