Charlotte Criminal Lawyer Blog
Attorney J. Bradley Smith answering the question: “Can the police search my car without a warrant?”
One federal court judge issued an important opinion recently that will help to counter the federal government’s attempt to comb through the emails and other online actions of Americans. What is even more surprising about the case is that the judge specified that restrictions should be imposed even as part of specific criminal investigations.
Magistrate Judge David Waxse took the unusual step of denying a governmental search warrant request according to a recent Yahoo article. According to news reports, law enforcement officials had asked for permission to access all emails, instant messages, chat records and other online communications from a range of popular online companies for a group of people the government believed were involved in stealing computer equipment from Sprint. The warrant asked for permission to sift through Google, Yahoo, Verizon, Skype and GoDaddy records for the group of suspects, a request that could potentially yield massive amounts of evidence against the suspected wrongdoers.
Rather than simply rubber stamp the warrant request, Judge Waxse said he was disturbed. Waxse said that the request represented an enormous overreach on the part of federal authorities and was in no way narrowly tailored to target information relevant to the alleged computer theft. Instead, Waxse said that the request was similar to if the government had asked the post office to turn over any and all mail that was ever sent or delivered to a certain person. The request would allow investigators free rein to poke through a person’s most private correspondence, much of which would have nothing to do with the crime in question.
Experts say that detectives have begun cracking cases thanks to the technology that links mug shots with pictures pulled off of various social networking websites. Beyond just social networking sites, the facial recognition unit also combs pictures collected from a vast network of surveillance cameras.
The state Supreme Court issued a ruling on the matter this week and found that such lab tests can stand on their own if cited by an expert witness offering an independent opinion. Other have argued that this conclusion is incorrect and that a lab test should face the same amount of scrutiny that a person would face and that means the analyst who conducted the test should be required to testify at trial.
The bill says that drones could not be used to gather criminal evidence or collect data unless there has been a search warrant issued by a judge. Beyond a valid warrant, the only other exception is in cases whether there is a reasonable suspicion that someone’s life is in danger.
The state ACLU chapter has released a statement expressing its concern over the increasing use of military equipment and technologies by traditional law enforcement agencies. The group says its goal in filing these public records requests is to make sure that these frightening technologies and tactics are not being deployed without considerable oversight and that citizens’ legal rights are still being upheld.
The company involved, DNA:SI Labs, is building a database that is meant to solve petty crimes and property crimes, such as car thefts and home break-ins. Many of these crimes take place across various cities and the hope is that by collecting DNA evidence at several scenes, police officers will be able to link together crimes and have a better chance of catching the perpetrators.