Various sorts of surveillance and the warrants needed.

[Jacobtm]

I'm under the impression that legally, you need a warrant to tap someone's phone. Is it also true that you need a warrant to survey someone's internet activities (read email/instant message conversations, look at web history), or to physically survey them as in police watching your house from an unmarked van?

If you need warrants for internet surveillance and physically watching/following someone, then what are the standards of evidence? Do you need more evidence to wire-tap someone than you do to read their emails? What about actually following them in a vehicle?

[Left-Wing Blogger]

I think you need a warrant for all three, but what difference does it make? Bush doesn't care.

[J. J.]

To watch someone, you don't need a warrant.  Basically the police could park an unmarked van across from my house and take photos (though they would be exceedingly board).

[bullmoose88]

To watch someone, you don't need a warrant.  Basically the police could park an unmarked van across from my house and take photos (though they would be exceedingly board).

Because by keeping your windows open, or not closed enough, you implicitly waive your privacy rights.

[J. J.]

To watch someone, you don't need a warrant.  Basically the police could park an unmarked van across from my house and take photos (though they would be exceedingly board).

Because by keeping your windows open, or not closed enough, you implicitly waive your privacy rights.

Yes, basically.  If a member of the public can walk down my street and look in my window so can the police.

[bullmoose88]

To watch someone, you don't need a warrant.  Basically the police could park an unmarked van across from my house and take photos (though they would be exceedingly board).

Because by keeping your windows open, or not closed enough, you implicitly waive your privacy rights.

Yes, basically.  If a member of the public can walk down my street and look in my window so can the police.

Providing they don't augment their senses in a manner not commonly used by the public...so binoculars okay...some sort of infrared...currently no.

I believe the law on email is this, if you're writing an email and sending it, you have an expectation of privacy...but once the email has been received you cant really say you control it.

[J. J.]

Providing they don't augment their senses in a manner not commonly used by the public...so binoculars okay...some sort of infrared...currently no.

I believe the law on email is this, if you're writing an email and sending it, you have an expectation of privacy...but once the email has been received you cant really say you control it.

Has that been adjudicated yet?  I would be interested.

[bullmoose88]

Providing they don't augment their senses in a manner not commonly used by the public...so binoculars okay...some sort of infrared...currently no.

I believe the law on email is this, if you're writing an email and sending it, you have an expectation of privacy...but once the email has been received you cant really say you control it.

Has that been adjudicated yet?  I would be interested.

I can't promise i have the holdings 100% correct, I am a mere law student, but here's what I have from class notes (we're doing this very topic in criminal procedure)

Email case (Unfortunately the only one thus far I have is a military case, my text [not with me at the moment] doesn't have a civilian case for it...)

Anyways:

United States v. Maxwell (Military Court...I think Air Force...will get the case cite when I get home if you can't find it)

And the infrared thing is Kyllo v. United States (Scalia actually found the infrared observation of high intensity lamps for pot growing purposes, a search...I think...such is the risk you take by taking my word as B law student.)

[J. J.]

I remembered the infrared case, but didn't know the result.  I'll be out tonight so take your time.

[bullmoose88]

Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), held that the use of a thermal imaging device from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat from a person's home was a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and thus required a warrant. Because the police in this case did not have a warrant, the Court reversed Kyllo's conviction for growing marijuana.

(Copied that from wikipedia)

Email Case

United States v. Maxwell, 45 M.J. 406 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 1996)

[J. J.]

Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), held that the use of a thermal imaging device from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat from a person's home was a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and thus required a warrant. Because the police in this case did not have a warrant, the Court reversed Kyllo's conviction for growing marijuana.

(Copied that from wikipedia)

Email Case

United States v. Maxwell, 45 M.J. 406 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 1996)

Thank you; interesting division.