Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts)
Fri Mar 21, 2014, 12:42 PM Mar 2014

A federal judge has admonished the Justice Department on violations of the 4th

WASHINGTON — A federal judge has admonished the Justice Department for repeatedly requesting overly broad searches of people’s email accounts, a practice that he called “repugnant” to the Constitution.

The unusually sharp rebuke by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola came last week in a kickback investigation involving a defense contractor. The case highlights the broad authority the government believes it has in searching email accounts, a power that gives the Justice Department potential access to a trove of personal information about anyone it investigates, even in routine criminal cases.

“The government continues to submit overly broad warrants and makes no effort to balance the law enforcement interest against the obvious expectation of privacy email account holders have in their communications,” Judge Facciola wrote.

But, he said, prosecutors must show probable cause for everything they seize, adding that Internet companies can easily search for specific emails, names and dates that are relevant to an investigation. He said he had raised similar concerns 20 times between September and December 2013. In this particular case, prosecutors wanted every email, contact, picture and transaction record associated with an account stored on Apple servers.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/20/us/judge-rebukes-officials-over-requests-for-broad-email-searches.html

It is significant, however, that the surveillance request denied by Facciola relates to a criminal investigation, unrelated to terrorism. This demonstrates that the use by the Obama administration of blanket warrants enabling them to seize all information on a person's Internet accounts is not limited to terrorism, as is frequently claimed, but is part of a program of general mass illegal spying on the American people.


Facciola’s ruling states in no uncertain terms that the Obama administration has aggressively and repeatedly sought expansive, unconstitutional warrants, ignoring the court’s insistence for specific, narrowly targeted surveillance requests.


“The government continues to submit overly broad warrants and makes no effort to balance the law enforcement interest against the obvious expectation of privacy email account holders have in their communications…

The government continues to ask for all electronically stored information in email accounts, irrespective of the relevance to the investigation,” wrote Judge Facciola.



http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/03/21/nsar-m21.html

22 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
A federal judge has admonished the Justice Department on violations of the 4th (Original Post) Ichingcarpenter Mar 2014 OP
Finally, some pushback. badtoworse Mar 2014 #1
Huge K&R. Let's bold an important part of that. woo me with science Mar 2014 #2
^^ Applause! ^^ n/t Catherina Mar 2014 #19
Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola LiberalAndProud Mar 2014 #3
Good man. jsr Mar 2014 #4
Big Kick and Rec! 2banon Mar 2014 #5
Somebody should run for AG /nt dickthegrouch Mar 2014 #6
Since when do we call a subpoena for email records "spying?" nt JJChambers Mar 2014 #7
Perhaps because the judge sees it this way? Oilwellian Mar 2014 #8
Warrantless search. LiberalAndProud Mar 2014 #9
Well Done Ichingcarpenter Mar 2014 #10
The second ruling this week slapping a fed dept. for unconstitutional practices. uncommonlink Mar 2014 #11
Sadly, the president is not a civil libertarian. Vattel Mar 2014 #12
kick woo me with science Mar 2014 #13
Kick. uncommonlink Mar 2014 #14
Federal judge to receive digitial colonoscopy in 3 -- 2 -- 1 nt Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2014 #15
kick woo me with science Mar 2014 #16
K & R n/t Aerows Mar 2014 #17
Kick! nt Logical Mar 2014 #18
kick woo me with science Mar 2014 #20
HUGE K & R !!! WillyT Mar 2014 #21
Recommended.n/t Autumn Mar 2014 #22

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
2. Huge K&R. Let's bold an important part of that.
Fri Mar 21, 2014, 12:50 PM
Mar 2014
[font size=2]It is significant, however, that the surveillance request denied by Facciola relates to a criminal investigation, unrelated to terrorism. This demonstrates that the use by the Obama administration of blanket warrants enabling them to seize all information on a person's Internet accounts is not limited to terrorism, as is frequently claimed, but is part of a program of general mass illegal spying on the American people.
[/font size]

Oilwellian

(12,647 posts)
8. Perhaps because the judge sees it this way?
Fri Mar 21, 2014, 01:38 PM
Mar 2014
Facciola’s ruling states in no uncertain terms that the Obama administration has aggressively and repeatedly sought expansive, unconstitutional warrants, ignoring the court’s insistence for specific, narrowly targeted surveillance requests.

LiberalAndProud

(12,799 posts)
9. Warrantless search.
Fri Mar 21, 2014, 01:45 PM
Mar 2014

Using e-mails obtained without an warrant to criminally prosecute is not constitutional behavior. It just isn't.

Here. Let this guy explain it to you.

http://obamaspeeches.com/041-The-PATRIOT-Act-Obama-Speech.htm

 

uncommonlink

(261 posts)
11. The second ruling this week slapping a fed dept. for unconstitutional practices.
Fri Mar 21, 2014, 03:45 PM
Mar 2014
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/18/judge-slams-atf-stash-house-stings/6565179/

This Federal Judge wasn't too kind to the BATFE.

It's about time there was push back to these agencies and their unconstitutional policies.
Let's hope it continues until we finally restore our rights and do away with the repugnent and unconstitutional Patriot Act.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»A federal judge has admon...