A California federal judge has ordered the GIRLFRIEND of an FBI Armenian-gang suspect to surrender her phone and use her thumb-print to unlock it for them. She is not, repeat NOT, a suspect in his purported criminal activities, nor is she under any investigations by the FBI.
Apparently the FBI went to the judge in secret, without the girlfriend or her lawyer present, and convinced the judge that they needed her phone to look for criminal activity of his. Clearly to me, this is a blatant violation of her 4th right to unreasonable search and seizure(or as most call it our "guaranteed right to privacy" and certainly her 5th right to not to be compelled to incriminate herself.
In what kind of Orwellian imperial state are we now living where in secret, a federal judge and FBI, with all the firepower and force that implies, can violate not one but two of a citizen's rights as guaranteed by the Constitution, simply in the name of fishing for evidence, when that citizen is not a suspect in any crime?
Unless she is named as a suspect and the feds can show the judge, with her lawyers present, that they have reasonable cause to suspect her of a crime, they don't have the right to compel her to in effect, make a statement against herself that she doesn't want to make.
I'm guessing these types of cases will work their way to the Supreme Court in the next session hopefully and this nonsense will be settled.
3 comments:
Have the police ever been required to notify targets of a warrant in advance and allow them to have council during the warrant application?
I think they can't target any associates, who remained unnamed in the original investigation, as new targets and compel them to, in essence, incriminate themselves, without due process. At least that's how judge Napolitano explained it.
I defer to the Libertarian Judge, but thought warrants could be taken out on anyone with a judge's concurrence.
Post a Comment