Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge Rules FBI Violated Fourth Amendment By Recording 200+ Hours of Audio At A Courthouse (thenextweb.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the secret-conversations dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Next Web: A federal judge in the Bay Area ruled that the FBI violated the fourth amendment by recording more than 200 hours of conversation at the entrance to a court house. Agents planted concealed microphones around the San Mateo County Courthouse in 2009 and 2010 as part of an investigation into bid-rigging at public auctions for foreclosed homes. In November, lawyers representing five defendants filed a motion that the recordings were unconstitutional on fourth amendment grounds (illegal search and seizure). U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer wrote in an order yesterday: [T]he government utterly failed to justify a warrantless electronic surveillance that recorded private conversations spoken in hushed tones by judges, attorneys, and court staff entering and exiting a courthouse. Even putting aside the sensitive nature of the location here, Defendants have established that they believed their conversations were private and they took reasonable steps to thwart eavesdroppers. The report continues: "The FBI originally used a cooperator wearing a wire to eavesdrop at auctions as well as an undercover agent posing as an investor. At some point though, the cooperating source 'soured' according to FBI testimony and it became 'typical behavior' for the accused to 'walk away from a larger group' and speak 'separate[ly] from [the] informant and undercover agent.' The FBI then adopted the new technique, bugging the courthouse and collecting more than 200 hours of audio over a nine month span. The problem, as pointed out by Judge Breyer, was: '[The FBI was] capturing the conversations of anyone who entered or exited the employee entrance of the courthouse... The FBI never sought judicial authorization for this program.'"

8 of 95 comments (clear)

  1. Conversation in public location by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Uhhh... a conversation in a public location has never had the expectation of privacy.

    Oh? Judges and lawyers were involved? Once again, there are rules for us, and different rules for them.

    1. Re:Conversation in public location by diamondmagic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If it's something that would be illegal for a normal person to do, then the government needs a warrant. Period.

      --
      Wonder what the public key field is for?
    2. Re:Conversation in public location by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If it's something that would be illegal for a normal person to do, then even government officials need to be indicted. Period.

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    3. Re: Conversation in public location by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bullshit. I am so sick to death of the 'if you do it in public you have no expectation of privacy'. That's wrong, absolutely wrong.

      I have no expectation of invisibility, or in this case inaudibility. Someone might see me, someone might hear me. There aren't a lot of things you can do about being seen, but there's plenty about being heard. You can talk quietly. You can stop talking when others are around and you see them. You can notice someone taking an excessive interest in what you're doing and confront them or move elsewhere.

      If I do those things then I have every expectation that's good enough. It's how humans work. It's wrong for someone to have placed a covert recording device in a public space, your no expectation of privacy be damned.

      It's wrong to have hidden cameras in a public space. It's wrong to have mass license plate scanners. It's wrong to have microphones. I don't care for security cameras but I get the need for them, I can see them, and their purpose is to watch an area, not specific people. That said, it's wrong for cops to tie facial recognition into them and keep a database of who's been where.

      It's time we end this no expectation of privacy foolishness. A reasonable person has lots of expectations of privacy.

  2. It's this kind of shit that makes you wonder... by geekmux · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...just how many times the FBI has done this kind of blatantly illegal activity and and gotten away with it.

  3. It's only illegal when it affects those with power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When is it going to be illegal for all of us to be spied on without a good reason?

  4. Re:It's only illegal when it affects those with po by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is a really big difference in a targeted investigation where you tape a conversation conducted between your mark and someone else versus taping everyone in an area no matter who they are or what time of day they are there. The very fact that the FBI did not get a warrant tells me that they KNEW what they were doing was illegal and there wasn't a single judge in the nation that would sign off on it. That is why I have real issues with the mass surveillance conducted by law enforcement. They are not doing any actual investigation to solve current crime, they are merely recording possible evidence for use in possible future crimes.

  5. Re:It's only illegal when it affects those with po by StormReaver · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When is it going to be illegal for all of us to be spied on without a good reason?

    In the U.S., it has been illegal since June 21, 1778. It's just that all three branches of our government ignore the Constitution, and the judiciary rewrites parts of it almost every time it hears a case.