Tag Archives: Federal district court

Refining The Law Because Of Technology

Posted on by

For those of us who grew up before the age of computers and cell phones, a lot of what is currently happening in technology and being created electronically is very foreign. These changes in technology are also impacting our laws. Being tracked by your cell phone is nothing new. Back in the day when your cell phone looked like something you would use to call in an air strike, when you left one calling zone and entered another, you got a welcoming phone call. Even back then they knew where you were if you carried a cell phone (then known as a car phone).

On Wednesday, Just the News posted an article about how the location information on cell phones can be used.

The article reports:

Two federal appeals courts have taken starkly different views on one of the government ‘s newer electronic dragnet tools – geofence warrants that track people via their cell phones – setting up a likely showdown before the U.S. Supreme Court that could define privacy in the digital era for decades to come.

Last week, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that such geofence warrants are “categorically prohibited by the Fourth Amendment” protection against unlawful search and seizure. The judges concluded the mass gathering of Americans’ cell phone geographic locations to identify a single suspect in a postal worker’s armed robbery amounted to the sort of general warrant that the Founding Fathers steadfastly rejected at America’s birth as their new country broke from British rule.

“It is undeniable that general warrants are plainly unconstitutional,” that appeals court ruled. The 5th Circuit oversees appeals from Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas federal district courts.

A few states over, the 4th U.S. Circuit of Appeals came to a different conclusion, ruling that when law enforcement gathers two hours of all a cell phone users’ records in Google’s database for a certain location near a crime it didn’t violate privacy because more than a half-billion cell phone users had opted to turn on the geo-tracking capabilities of their to make their apps work better. Such opt-ins, the 4th Circuit ruled, amounted to a waiver of privacy. The 4th Circuit oversees appeals from Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina federal district courts.

The article concludes:

In other words, using a digital dragnet to search millions of Americans location records to identify an unknown assailant or two amounted to a fishing exercise tantamount to the “general warrants” the Constitution’s framers rejected handily two centuries earlier.

Google has revealed that the number of geo-warrants has gone from rare in 2016 to overwhelming – more than 10,000 annually – a decade later. The tech giant announced last year it was shutting down its ability to store all users’ geo location data in its own database known as Sensorvault and instead leaving it on each consumer’s cell phone where it must be obtained by individual warrant.

No matter how Google changes their practices, the breadth of digital searching that law enforcement can still do in 2024 from other vendors leaves most experts certain the issue of geofencing and tactics likely will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

This is something to watch. How much privacy are Americans entitled to?

.

This Is A Good Idea

Posted on by

On Wednesday, Breitbart reported that the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of signature verification for mail-in voting in the state of Pennsylvania. Mail-in voting has been found to be one of the major sources of voter fraud in America. This is a step toward election integrity.

The article reports:

In a 2-1 ruling by three Democrat-appointed judges, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a previous ruling from a federal district court that struck down the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling that required a “dated signature requirement” for mail-in voting. Per the RNC:

In November 2022, the RNC, NRCC, and PAGOP secured a victory on this issue in front of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. A federal district court then struck down the dated signature requirement in November 2023. We appealed, and now the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed with the RNC’s argument.

This was a 2-1 ruling handed down by 3 Democrat-appointed judges. This ruling will have far-reaching effects regarding left-wing attempts to weaponize the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act across the country and represents a victory for mail ballot safeguards in a crucial swing state.

The article concludes:

Pennsylvania, RNC Chairman Michael Whatley hailed the decision as a “crucial victory for election integrity.”

“This is a crucial victory for election integrity and voter confidence in the Keystone State and nationwide. Pennsylvanians deserve to feel confident in the security of their mail ballots, and this 3rd Circuit ruling roundly rejects unlawful left-wing attempts to count undated or incorrectly dated mail ballots. Republicans will continue to fight and win for election integrity in courts across the country ahead of the 2024 election,” he said in a statement.

The case is PA State Conference of NAACP Branches vs. Secretary Commonwealth of PA, No. 23-3166 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

This is a positive step toward election integrity.

Finally Addressing The Obvious

Posted on by

On Thursday, PJ Media posted an article about the difference between the way the ‘summer of love’ Antifa protestors who burned down buildings and killed people were treated and how the January 6th protestors who did nothing but walk through the Capitol were treated. Evidently there are some people in our judicial system who want to restore equal justice under the law.

The article reports:

Finally a federal judge who believes in justice or something close to it. Could this be a crack in the dike of the tyranny of the DOJ? Is this the beginning of the end of Antifa pattern of violence and silence? We can hope.

To understand what’s at stake, let’s take you back.

At UC Berkeley in 2017, Antifa and their local black bloc franchisees set fires and rioted to prevent Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking on campus. 

The anti-free speech violent protesters set off munitions, broke windows, beat people, and scared the university away from allowing any right-wing speakers to be heard on campus—unless they paid for their own security. Antifa radicals, calling themselves By Any Means Necessary (BAMN), framed themselves as brave and heroic for silencing speech of people they detested at the very birthplace of the campus free speech movement.

It was the first round of the speech wars between people on the right who were trying to speak and those on the left who called them “fascists” while calling themselves “anti fascist” and using violence to literally shut them up. 

Several people were arrested for the melee, but guess who were the only ones prosecuted? 

In an opinion issued February 21, California Federal District Court Judge Cormac J. Carney stiff-armed the DOJs Terrorism and Export Crimes Section out of Los Angeles and nailed them for selective prosecution. The decision to dismiss the federal charges against two men who at some point became members of a group characterized as “white supremacist” was based on the fact that Antifa did as bad or worse that day and at other events where both groups were represented and Antifa wasn’t prosecuted.

This pattern continues as charges were dropped against those who participated in the ‘summer of love’ and Vice-President Kamala Harris asked people to contribute to the bail of the people who were arrested. We need to restore ‘equal justice under the law’ if our country is to survive.

A Judge Gets It Right

Posted on by

On Friday, The Daily Caller posted an article about one of President Joe Biden’s key climate initiative. The initiative declared that there were “social costs” of continued greenhouse gas emissions.

The article reports:

A federal district court in Louisiana halted one of President Joe Biden’s key climate initiatives implemented shortly after he was inaugurated in January 2021.

Judge James Cain, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, concluded that the policy — which declared there were “social costs” of continued greenhouse gas emissions — caused significant harm to Americans, according to his ruling published Friday. The federal judge granted a motion for a preliminary injunction, pausing implementation of the policy.

“Plaintiff States have sufficiently identified the kinds of harms to support injunctive relief,” Cain wrote in his ruling. “Moreover, the Court finds that the Plaintiff States have made a clear showing of an injury-in-fact, and that such injury ‘cannot be undone through monetary remedies.’”

The article concludes:

Biden has pushed renewable energy alternatives, including solar and wind projects, aggressively since taking office in 2021. The White House has outlined plans to ensure the entire U.S. grid is carbon-free by 2035 and the economy reaches net zero emissions by 2050.

The Biden administration has also waged a war on traditional energy production, nixing the Keystone XL pipeline, ditching an oil drilling project in Alaska and confirming it would review the possibility of shutting down a Michigan pipeline supplying much of the Midwest.

Former President Donald Trump nominated Cain to the bench in 2018, and the Senate overwhelmingly confirmed him a year later.

The White House didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The cure for federal government overreach is a judiciary that has read the U.S. Constitution and is willing to follow it.