<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
>

<channel>
	<title>Juris Vodcast &#187; 4th Amendment</title>
	<atom:link href="http://jurisvodcast.com/category/4th-amendment/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://jurisvodcast.com</link>
	<description>The Rule of Law: Protecting the Many from the Few</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 27 Feb 2011 22:21:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<!-- podcast_generator="podPress/8.8" -->
		<copyright>&#xA9; </copyright>
		<managingEditor>scott_pearce@passthebar.com ()</managingEditor>
		<webMaster>scott_pearce@passthebar.com()</webMaster>
		<category></category>
		<itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
		<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
		<itunes:summary>The Rule of Law</itunes:summary>
		<itunes:author></itunes:author>
		<itunes:category text="Society &amp; Culture"/>
		<itunes:owner>
			<itunes:name></itunes:name>
			<itunes:email>scott_pearce@passthebar.com</itunes:email>
		</itunes:owner>
		<itunes:block>No</itunes:block>
		<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
		<itunes:image href="http://jurisvodcast.com/wp-content/plugins/podpress/images/powered_by_podpress_large.jpg" />
		
		<item>
		<title>Medical MJ Wins at Supreme Court</title>
		<link>http://jurisvodcast.com/2009/05/18/medical-mj-wins/</link>
		<comments>http://jurisvodcast.com/2009/05/18/medical-mj-wins/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2009 05:46:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Scott F. Pearce, Esq.</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Liberties]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jurisvodcast.com/?p=142</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The US Supreme Court has declined to hear San Diego&#8217;s appeal of California&#8217;s Compassionate Use Act.  This is good news.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: justify;">The US Supreme Court has declined to hear San Diego&#8217;s appeal of California&#8217;s Compassionate Use Act.  This is good news.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"></p>
<p><object width="425" height="344" data="http://www.youtube.com/v/9RBc16WFvjs&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="src" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9RBc16WFvjs&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /></object></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://jurisvodcast.com/2009/05/18/medical-mj-wins/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
			<enclosure url="http://jurisvodcast.com/2009_video/2009_0518_Pearce_Medical_MJ.mov" length="7004654" type="video/quicktime"/>
<itunes:duration>00:01:01</itunes:duration>
		<itunes:subtitle>The US Supreme Court has declined to hear San Diego's appeal of California's Compassionate Use Act.nbsp; This is good news.


 </itunes:subtitle>
		<itunes:summary>The US Supreme Court has declined to hear San Diego's appeal of California's Compassionate Use Act.nbsp; This is good news.


</itunes:summary>
		<itunes:keywords>4th,Amendment,,Civil,Liberties</itunes:keywords>
		<itunes:author>scott_pearce@passthebar.com</itunes:author>
		<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
		<itunes:block>No</itunes:block>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Benefit of Doubt Goes to Cops</title>
		<link>http://jurisvodcast.com/2009/01/15/supremes-give-benefit-of-doubt-to-cops/</link>
		<comments>http://jurisvodcast.com/2009/01/15/supremes-give-benefit-of-doubt-to-cops/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2009 20:48:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Scott F. Pearce, Esq.</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Liberties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law & Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jurisvodcast.com/?p=110</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The US Supreme Court just narrowed the 4th Amendment&#8217;s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures in a case called Herring v. United States. This is a case about the Exclusionary Rule.  Writing for the 5-4 majority, Chief Justice Roberts argues that the mistakes of law enforcement are not serious enough in the case to justify [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: justify;">The US Supreme Court just narrowed the 4th Amendment&#8217;s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures in a case called <a href="http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Herring_v._United_States">Herring v. United States.</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">This is a case about the Exclusionary Rule.  Writing for the 5-4 majority, Chief Justice Roberts argues that the mistakes of law enforcement are not serious enough in the case to justify excluding the evidence. This is not an outrageous argument, and it is not wildly out of line with the relevant cases.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">I don&#8217;t think this is a wise decision. Why should law enforcement be rewarded for being careless?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"></p>
<p><object width="425" height="344" data="http://www.youtube.com/v/B5ztehOsC9I&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="src" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/B5ztehOsC9I&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /></object></p>
<p>Don&#8217;t take my word for it.  <a href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-513.pdf">Read the decision and the dissents for yourself</a> and think about the issues presented.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://jurisvodcast.com/2009/01/15/supremes-give-benefit-of-doubt-to-cops/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
			<enclosure url="http://jurisvodcast.com/2009_video/2009_0115_Pearce_Supremes_Give_Benefit_of_Doubt_to_Cops.mov" length="3172294" type="video/quicktime"/>
<itunes:duration>00:01:01</itunes:duration>
		<itunes:subtitle>The US Supreme Court just narrowed the 4th Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures in a case called Herring v. United States.
This is a ...</itunes:subtitle>
		<itunes:summary>The US Supreme Court just narrowed the 4th Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures in a case called Herring v. United States.
This is a case about the Exclusionary Rule.nbsp; Writing for the 5-4 majority, Chief Justice Roberts argues that the mistakes of law enforcement are not serious enough in the case to justify excluding the evidence. This is not an outrageous argument, and it is not wildly out of line with the relevant cases.
I don't think this is a wise decision. Why should law enforcement be rewarded for being careless?




Don't take my word for it.nbsp; Read the decision and the dissents for yourself and think about the issues presented.</itunes:summary>
		<itunes:keywords>4th,Amendment,,Civil,Liberties,,Criminal,Law,amp;,Procedure,,Supreme,Court</itunes:keywords>
		<itunes:author>scott_pearce@passthebar.com</itunes:author>
		<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
		<itunes:block>No</itunes:block>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Spy Satellites &amp; Wall Street Bailout</title>
		<link>http://jurisvodcast.com/2008/10/03/spy-satellites-wall-street-bailout/</link>
		<comments>http://jurisvodcast.com/2008/10/03/spy-satellites-wall-street-bailout/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Oct 2008 22:05:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Scott F. Pearce, Esq.</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Liberties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Policy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jurisvodcast.com/2008/10/03/spy-satellites-wall-street-bailout/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This has been a dreadful week for Constitutional government in the United States. First, the government funds the National Applications Office. This is another step towards combining the US military with domestic law enforcement.  Next, they enact the Wall Street bailout bill, one of the biggest crimes ever committed against the US Taxpayer.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: justify;">This has been a dreadful week for Constitutional government in the United States. First, the government <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122282336428992785.html ">funds the National Applications Office.</a> This is another step towards combining the US military with domestic law enforcement.  Next, they enact the Wall Street bailout bill, one of the biggest crimes ever committed against the US Taxpayer.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" width="425" height="350" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" height="350" width="425" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000"><param name="src" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6CmPfIItDJ4" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6CmPfIItDJ4" height="350" width="425" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6CmPfIItDJ4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></object></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://jurisvodcast.com/2008/10/03/spy-satellites-wall-street-bailout/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
			<enclosure url="http://jurisvodcast.com/2008_video/081003_Pearce_Spy_Satellites_&_Wall_Street_Bailout.mov" length="6535568" type="video/quicktime"/>
<itunes:duration>00:01:01</itunes:duration>
		<itunes:subtitle>This has been a dreadful week for Constitutional government in the United States. First, the government funds the National Applications Office. This is another step ...</itunes:subtitle>
		<itunes:summary>This has been a dreadful week for Constitutional government in the United States. First, the government funds the National Applications Office. This is another step towards combining the US military with domestic law enforcement.nbsp; Next, they enact the Wall Street bailout bill, one of the biggest crimes ever committed against the US Taxpayer.



</itunes:summary>
		<itunes:keywords>4th,Amendment,,Civil,Liberties,,Securities,Law,,Tax,Policy</itunes:keywords>
		<itunes:author>scott_pearce@passthebar.com</itunes:author>
		<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
		<itunes:block>No</itunes:block>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement</title>
		<link>http://jurisvodcast.com/2008/09/17/the-anti-counterfeiting-trade-agreement/</link>
		<comments>http://jurisvodcast.com/2008/09/17/the-anti-counterfeiting-trade-agreement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2008 19:11:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Scott F. Pearce, Esq.</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jurisvodcast.com/2008/09/17/the-anti-counterfeiting-trade-agreement/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is the most important treaty you&#8217;ve never heard of. The big western countries are busy negotiating this big trade deal in secret. The news about ACTA that has leaked out of the negotiations is cause for concern. Meanwhile, the US Senate Judiciary Committee has voted for a bill called The Enforcement [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: justify;">The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement">Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement</a> is the most important treaty you&#8217;ve never heard of. The big western countries are busy negotiating this big trade deal <a href="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080916-100-groups-demand-to-see-secret-anticounterfeiting-treaty.html ">in secret.</a> The news about ACTA that has leaked out of the negotiations is cause for concern.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" width="425" height="350" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" height="350" width="425" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000"><param name="src" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xSmvIay-hj4" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xSmvIay-hj4" height="350" width="425" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xSmvIay-hj4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></object></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Meanwhile, the US Senate Judiciary Committee has voted for a bill called The <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s3325/show">Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act.</a> This distinctly wretched bill goes so far as to have the Justice Department empowered to file civil lawsuits against alleged copyright pirates. I guess the recording industry preferrs to have the taxpayers pay for their efforts to enforce their property rights.  The only Senators to oppose this bill were Republicans.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://jurisvodcast.com/2008/09/17/the-anti-counterfeiting-trade-agreement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
			<enclosure url="http://jurisvodcast.com/2008_video/080917_Pesrce_Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement.mov" length="6389940" type="video/quicktime"/>
<itunes:duration>00:01:01</itunes:duration>
		<itunes:subtitle>The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is the most important treaty you've never heard of. The big western countries are busy negotiating this big trade deal in ...</itunes:subtitle>
		<itunes:summary>The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is the most important treaty you've never heard of. The big western countries are busy negotiating this big trade deal in secret. The news about ACTA that has leaked out of the negotiations is cause for concern.



Meanwhile, the US Senate Judiciary Committee has voted for a bill called The Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act. This distinctly wretched bill goes so far as to have the Justice Department empowered to file civil lawsuits against alleged copyright pirates. I guess the recording industry preferrs to have the taxpayers pay for their efforts to enforce their property rights.nbsp; The only Senators to oppose this bill were Republicans.</itunes:summary>
		<itunes:keywords>4th,Amendment,,Intellectual,Property</itunes:keywords>
		<itunes:author>scott_pearce@passthebar.com</itunes:author>
		<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
		<itunes:block>No</itunes:block>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>FISA Court Denies Public Access</title>
		<link>http://jurisvodcast.com/2008/09/01/fisa-court-denies-public-access/</link>
		<comments>http://jurisvodcast.com/2008/09/01/fisa-court-denies-public-access/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2008 07:43:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Scott F. Pearce, Esq.</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Amendment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jurisvodcast.com/2008/09/01/fisa-court-denies-public-access/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed in 1978 and revised a few weeks ago. This law creates a SECRET COURT, to which the government has to go to get a rubber-stamped warrant to conduct surveillance on foreigners on US soil. The ACLU sued to get access to proceedings held by this court. Unsurprisingly, the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: justify;">The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed in 1978 and revised a few weeks ago. This law creates a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court ">SECRET COURT,</a> to which the government has to go to get a rubber-stamped warrant to conduct surveillance on foreigners on US soil.</p>
<p></p>
<p><object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" width="425" height="350" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" height="350" width="425" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000"><param name="src" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IhLAa_y72OQ" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IhLAa_y72OQ" height="350" width="425" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IhLAa_y72OQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></object></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The ACLU sued to get access to proceedings held by this court. Unsurprisingly, the attempt has failed. It&#8217;s an interesting case to have a look at. If you&#8217;re interested, check out <a href="http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/36590lgl20080828.html">the court&#8217;s decision,</a> the <a href="http://www.aclu.org/images/nsaspying/asset_upload_file46_36196.pdf ">government&#8217;s brief, </a> or the following news stories: <a href="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080829-secretive-surveillance-court-rejects-plea-for-transparency.html ">here,</a> and <a href="http://rawstory.com/news/2008/FISA_court_rejects_ACLU_request_for_0829.html ">here.</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://jurisvodcast.com/2008/09/01/fisa-court-denies-public-access/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
			<enclosure url="http://jurisvodcast.com/2008_video/080901_Pearce_FISA_Court_Denies_Access.mov" length="1" type="video/quicktime"/>
<itunes:duration>00:01:01</itunes:duration>
		<itunes:subtitle>The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed in 1978 and revised a few weeks ago. This law creates a SECRET COURT, to which the government ...</itunes:subtitle>
		<itunes:summary>The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed in 1978 and revised a few weeks ago. This law creates a SECRET COURT, to which the government has to go to get a rubber-stamped warrant to conduct surveillance on foreigners on US soil.



The ACLU sued to get access to proceedings held by this court. Unsurprisingly, the attempt has failed. It's an interesting case to have a look at. If you're interested, check out the court's decision, the government's brief,  or the following news stories: here, and here.</itunes:summary>
		<itunes:keywords>4th,Amendment</itunes:keywords>
		<itunes:author>scott_pearce@passthebar.com</itunes:author>
		<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
		<itunes:block>No</itunes:block>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>GPS &amp; the Fourth Amendment</title>
		<link>http://jurisvodcast.com/2008/08/14/gps-the-fourth-amendment/</link>
		<comments>http://jurisvodcast.com/2008/08/14/gps-the-fourth-amendment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2008 06:02:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Scott F. Pearce, Esq.</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Amendment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jurisvodcast.com/2008/08/14/gps-the-fourth-amendment/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Since 1967, the US Supreme Court has acknowledged that the 4th Amendment will have to evolve with the advances in technology. The case law is getting interesting. US v. Garcia is a 2007 case from the 7th Circuit. Follow the link and have a look at the decision for yourself.  You can read a Harvard [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: justify;">Since 1967, the US Supreme Court has acknowledged that the 4th Amendment will have to evolve with the advances in technology. The case law is getting interesting.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"></p>
<p><object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" width="425" height="350" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"><param name="src" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/E4YJ2N5TqN0" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/E4YJ2N5TqN0"></embed></object></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://www.projectposner.org/case/2007/474F3d994">US v. Garcia</a> is a 2007 case from the 7th Circuit. Follow the link and have a look at the decision for yourself.  You can read a Harvard Law Review article about the issues <a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/120/june07/recentcases/united_states_v_garcia.pdf">here.</a> I think the court&#8217;s reasoning is sensible and scholarly, although I would have used it to reach the opposite result in the instant case. Here&#8217;s <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/12/AR2008081203275_pf.html ">a recent Washington Post article</a> on GPS and the 4th Amendment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://jurisvodcast.com/2008/08/14/gps-the-fourth-amendment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
			<enclosure url="http://jurisvodcast.com/2008_video/080813_Pearce_GPS_4th_Amendment_Juris_Vodcast.mov" length="1" type="video/quicktime"/>
<itunes:duration>00:01:01</itunes:duration>
		<itunes:subtitle>Since 1967, the US Supreme Court has acknowledged that the 4th Amendment will have to evolve with the advances in technology. The case law is ...</itunes:subtitle>
		<itunes:summary>Since 1967, the US Supreme Court has acknowledged that the 4th Amendment will have to evolve with the advances in technology. The case law is getting interesting.


US v. Garcia is a 2007 case from the 7th Circuit. Follow the link and have a look at the decision for yourself.nbsp; You can read a Harvard Law Review article about the issues here. I think the court's reasoning is sensible and scholarly, although I would have used it to reach the opposite result in the instant case. Here's a recent Washington Post article on GPS and the 4th Amendment.</itunes:summary>
		<itunes:keywords>4th,Amendment</itunes:keywords>
		<itunes:author>scott_pearce@passthebar.com</itunes:author>
		<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
		<itunes:block>No</itunes:block>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>H.R. 6702: Strengthening the 4th Amendment</title>
		<link>http://jurisvodcast.com/2008/08/04/hr-6702-strengthening-the-4th-amendment/</link>
		<comments>http://jurisvodcast.com/2008/08/04/hr-6702-strengthening-the-4th-amendment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2008 23:10:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Scott F. Pearce, Esq.</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Amendment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jurisvodcast.com/?p=53</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Department of Homeland Security claims that it has the right to take away a traveler&#8217;s laptop or other electronic device, keep it indefinitely, and share the data with anybody they want, without any suspicion of wrongdoing. House Resolution 6702, by Ron Paul and Eliot Engel, would require the Department to show reasonable suspicion of [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: justify;">The Department of Homeland Security claims that it has the right to take away a traveler&#8217;s laptop or other electronic device, keep it indefinitely, and share the data with anybody they want, without any suspicion of wrongdoing.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" width="425" height="344" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" height="344" width="425" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="src" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/O25sOOxpn2k&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/O25sOOxpn2k&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1" height="344" width="425" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/O25sOOxpn2k&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1" allowfullscreen="true" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></object></p>
<p align="justify">
<p align="justify">House Resolution 6702, by Ron Paul and Eliot Engel, would require the Department to show reasonable suspicion of criminal activity before it could search and seize electronic gadgets from travelers.</p>
<p align="justify">Read about the DHS and HR 6702 <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/content/article/2008/08/01/laptops.html?hpid=topnews ">here,</a> <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/08/homeland_securi_2.html ">here</a> <a href="http://newresearchfindings.blogspot.com/search/label/The%20Engel%2FPaul%20%22Securing%20Our%20Borders%20and%20Our%20Data%20Act%22 ">here</a> and <a href="http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2008/pr080408.htm ">here.</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://jurisvodcast.com/2008/08/04/hr-6702-strengthening-the-4th-amendment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
			<enclosure url="http://jurisvodcast.com/2008_video/080804_Pearce_HR_6702_Border_Laptop_Seizures.mov" length="7225722" type="video/quicktime"/>
<itunes:duration>00:01:01</itunes:duration>
		<itunes:subtitle>The Department of Homeland Security claims that it has the right to take away a traveler's laptop or other electronic device, keep it indefinitely, and ...</itunes:subtitle>
		<itunes:summary>The Department of Homeland Security claims that it has the right to take away a traveler's laptop or other electronic device, keep it indefinitely, and share the data with anybody they want, without any suspicion of wrongdoing.




House Resolution 6702, by Ron Paul and Eliot Engel, would require the Department to show reasonable suspicion of criminal activity before it could search and seize electronic gadgets from travelers.
Read about the DHS and HR 6702 here, here here and here.
</itunes:summary>
		<itunes:keywords>4th,Amendment</itunes:keywords>
		<itunes:author>scott_pearce@passthebar.com</itunes:author>
		<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
		<itunes:block>No</itunes:block>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Strip-Searched Kid Can Sue</title>
		<link>http://jurisvodcast.com/2008/07/12/strip-searched-kid-can-sue/</link>
		<comments>http://jurisvodcast.com/2008/07/12/strip-searched-kid-can-sue/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Jul 2008 04:09:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Scott F. Pearce, Esq.</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Liberties]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jurisvodcast.com/?p=49</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Savannah Redding, a 13 year-old honor student, was strip-searched at school because a girl who already was in trouble said Savannah might be carrying ibuprofen. The 9th Circuit says Savannah has the right to sue the child molester school administrator who did it. The case raises issues in two different areas: the 4th Amendment&#8217;s protection [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: justify;">Savannah Redding, a 13 year-old honor student, was strip-searched at school because a girl who already was in trouble said Savannah might be carrying ibuprofen.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The 9th Circuit says Savannah has the right to sue the <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">child molester</span> school administrator who did it. The case raises issues in two different areas: the 4th Amendment&#8217;s protection against illegal searches, and the idea of limited immunity for officials.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" width="425" height="344" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="src" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KmJOOfU8HII&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KmJOOfU8HII&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object></p>
<p>Read the <a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4973294E6FFDBE118825748300566441/%24file/0515759.pdf?openelement ">9th Circuit Decision</a> &#8211; <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0469_0325_ZS.html ">NJ v TLO</a> &#8211; <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1977.ZS.html ">Saucier v Katz</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://jurisvodcast.com/2008/07/12/strip-searched-kid-can-sue/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
			<enclosure url="http://jurisvodcast.com/2008_video/080712_Pearce_Strip_Searched_Kid_Can_Sue.mov" length="7083564" type="video/quicktime"/>
<itunes:duration>00:01:01</itunes:duration>
		<itunes:subtitle>Savannah Redding, a 13 year-old honor student, was strip-searched at school because a girl who already was in trouble said Savannah might be carrying ibuprofen.
The ...</itunes:subtitle>
		<itunes:summary>Savannah Redding, a 13 year-old honor student, was strip-searched at school because a girl who already was in trouble said Savannah might be carrying ibuprofen.
The 9th Circuit says Savannah has the right to sue the child molester school administrator who did it. The case raises issues in two different areas: the 4th Amendment's protection against illegal searches, and the idea of limited immunity for officials.




Read the 9th Circuit Decision - NJ v TLO - Saucier v Katz</itunes:summary>
		<itunes:keywords>4th,Amendment,,Civil,Liberties</itunes:keywords>
		<itunes:author>scott_pearce@passthebar.com</itunes:author>
		<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
		<itunes:block>No</itunes:block>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>FISA Update: Hillary Clinton Defends the Constitution</title>
		<link>http://jurisvodcast.com/2008/07/10/fisa-update/</link>
		<comments>http://jurisvodcast.com/2008/07/10/fisa-update/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2008 03:18:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Scott F. Pearce, Esq.</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Liberties]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jurisvodcast.com/?p=47</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The President signed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This is more dreadful news for those of us who respect the rule of law. This bill gives the government even more power to collect highly personal data without a warrant or probable cause. It gives immunity the big telecommunications companies that illegally conspired with the Bush [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: justify;">The President signed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This is more dreadful news for those of us who respect the rule of law.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">This bill gives the government even more power to collect highly personal data without a warrant or probable cause. It gives immunity the big telecommunications companies that illegally conspired with the Bush Administration to spy on innocent Americans.</p>
<p>Hillary Clinton stood up for the Constitution, supporting a filibuster on the bill and voting against it. Barak Obama supported President Bush.<br />
<object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" width="425" height="344" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="src" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qgYdt2JYQoc&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qgYdt2JYQoc&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://jurisvodcast.com/2008/07/10/fisa-update/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
			<enclosure url="http://jurisvodcast.com/2008_video/080710_Pearce_FISA_Update_Juris_Vodcast.mov" length="8645688" type="video/quicktime"/>
<itunes:duration>00:01:01</itunes:duration>
		<itunes:subtitle>The President signed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This is more dreadful news for those of us who respect the rule of law.
This bill gives ...</itunes:subtitle>
		<itunes:summary>The President signed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This is more dreadful news for those of us who respect the rule of law.
This bill gives the government even more power to collect highly personal data without a warrant or probable cause. It gives immunity the big telecommunications companies that illegally conspired with the Bush Administration to spy on innocent Americans.
Hillary Clinton stood up for the Constitution, supporting a filibuster on the bill and voting against it. Barak Obama supported President Bush.
</itunes:summary>
		<itunes:keywords>4th,Amendment,,Civil,Liberties</itunes:keywords>
		<itunes:author>scott_pearce@passthebar.com</itunes:author>
		<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
		<itunes:block>No</itunes:block>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Resisting FISA</title>
		<link>http://jurisvodcast.com/2008/06/28/resisting-fisa/</link>
		<comments>http://jurisvodcast.com/2008/06/28/resisting-fisa/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Jun 2008 02:45:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Scott F. Pearce, Esq.</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Liberties]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jurisvodcast.com/?p=39</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is a draconian bill that will make all of us significantly less safe &#8211; from the prying eyes of our own government. Not only does this bill allow the government to record all international phone calls and data messages that cross the US border, it gives the big telecommunications companies [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: justify;">The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is a draconian bill that will make all of us significantly less safe &#8211; from the prying eyes of our own government. Not only does this bill allow the government to record all international phone calls and data messages that cross the US border, it gives the big telecommunications companies immunity for their prior illegal acts.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GGY1IZx2GVg&#038;hl=en&#038;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GGY1IZx2GVg&#038;hl=en&#038;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Senators Feingold and Dodd are standing up for the Constitution. They have delayed the vote on this bill until after the upcoming holiday. Here is a <a href="http://www.theyoungturks.com/story/2008/6/24/16173/7681/tytvideoclips/Senator-Feingold-On-TYT ">recent interview with Feingold</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security is <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/seizinglaptopsandcameraswithoutcause">seizing laptops and memory cards at the border</a> and making mirror image copies &#8211; without a warrant and without probable cause.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://jurisvodcast.com/2008/06/28/resisting-fisa/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
			<enclosure url="http://jurisvodcast.com/2008_video/080627_Pearce_Resisting_FISA_Juris_Vodcast.mov" length="8732184" type="video/quicktime"/>
<itunes:duration>00:01:01</itunes:duration>
		<itunes:subtitle>The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is a draconian bill that will make all of us significantly less safe - from the prying eyes of our ...</itunes:subtitle>
		<itunes:summary>The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is a draconian bill that will make all of us significantly less safe - from the prying eyes of our own government. Not only does this bill allow the government to record all international phone calls and data messages that cross the US border, it gives the big telecommunications companies immunity for their prior illegal acts.


Senators Feingold and Dodd are standing up for the Constitution. They have delayed the vote on this bill until after the upcoming holiday. Here is a recent interview with Feingold.
Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security is seizing laptops and memory cards at the border and making mirror image copies - without a warrant and without probable cause.</itunes:summary>
		<itunes:keywords>4th,Amendment,,Civil,Liberties</itunes:keywords>
		<itunes:author>scott_pearce@passthebar.com</itunes:author>
		<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
		<itunes:block>No</itunes:block>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

