This piece was reprinted by OpEd News with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Wahchumwah's Fourth Amendment rights were violated. An undercover US Fish and Wildlife Service agent secretly recorded information inside his home on a concealed video camera in his clothes.
Wahchumwah was charged with violating the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and Lacey Act for allegedly selling bald and gold eagle feathers. He moved to disallow lawlessly obtained video information. His motion was denied. He appealed. EFF supports him.
In United States v. Jones (January 2012), the Supreme Court ruled the Fourth Amendment prohibits using warrantless GPS surveillance to monitor a person's car on public roads for 28 days.
The decision applies to video surveillance at home. Wahchumwah let the agent enter his home. He didn't agree to videotaping, especially doing it secretly.
EFF said "intensive video surveillance" previously "was reserved for serious, violent crimes." Now it's possible for any reason targeting anyone, including secretly at home.
A Final Comment
A 2008 ACLU report titled "American Surveillance Society" said:
Post-9/11, mass surveillance became policy. Ordinary Americans are watched intrusively. Their "telephone calls and e-mails, web browsing records, financial records, credit reports, and library records" are monitored.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
