Congress Quietly Passed a Bill Allowing Warrantless Searches of Homes—Only 1% Opposed It

A bill that will allow homes to be searched without a warrant was passed with overwhelming support by the United States Congress, and signed into law by President Trump—and it happened with no media coverage and very little fanfare.

On the surface, House Judiciary Resolution 76 looks harmless. The title of the bill claims that its purpose is “Granting the consent and approval of Congress for the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of Maryland, and the District of Columbia to enter into a compact relating to the establishment of the Washington Metrorail Safety Commission.”

“Whereas the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, an interstate compact agency of the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the State of Maryland, provides transportation services to millions of people each year, the safety of whom is paramount; Whereas an effective and safe Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority system is essential to the commerce and prosperity of the National Capital region; Whereas the Tri-State Oversight Committee, created by a memorandum of understanding amongst these 3 jurisdictions, has provided safety oversight of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.”

The proposal for a safety commission to act as a wing of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority may sound logical, when its power includes thing such as the ability to “Adopt, revise, and distribute a written State Safety Oversight Program” and to “Review, approve, oversee, and enforce the adoption and implementation of WMATA’s Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan.”

Advertisment

However, there is one major red flag buried within the text of the bill that stems from the list of “powers” given to the Washington Metrorail Safety Commission, and it violates one of the basic tenants of the U.S. Constitution.

“In performing its duties, the Commission, through its Board or designated employees or agents, may: Enter upon the WMATA Rail System and, upon reasonable notice and a finding by the chief executive officer that a need exists, upon any lands, waters, and premises adjacent to the WMATA Rail System, including, without limitation, property owned or occupied by the federal government, for the purpose of making inspections, investigations, examinations, and testing as the Commission may deem necessary to carry out the purposes of this MSC Compact, and such entry shall not be deemed a trespass.”

The text gives the Commission the authority to enter property near the Metro Rail System “without limitation” and without a warrant, for the purpose of “making inspections, investigations, examinations, and testing.”

This clearly goes against the Fourth Amendment, which states that Americans’ rights “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.”

When the bill was brought to a vote in the House of Representatives, there were only five Congressmen who voted against it: Representatives Justin Amash, a Republican from Michigan; Walter Jones, a Republican from North Carolina; Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky; Alex Mooney, a Republican from West Virginia; and Mark Sanford, a Republican from South Carolina.

READ MORE:  Breaking: Congress Passes Bill Giving Police Unlimited Access to Citizens" Private Communications

Amash called out the hypocrisy surrounding the fact that even though this legislation is in clear violation of the Constitution, it was passed by Congress with overwhelming support. “Only 5 of us voted against bill allowing govt to enter/search private property in parts of VA, MD & DC w/o warrant,” He wrote on Twitter.

Only 5 of us voted against bill allowing govt to enter/search private property in parts of VA, MD & DC w/o warrant. https://t.co/SVhTWqbPaB

— Justin Amash (@justinamash) July 18, 2017

This is not the first time Congress has quietly passed a bill that will take away some of the most basic rights from law-abiding citizens in the U.S., and it won’t be the last. One of the most important things to remember about this legislation is that it was ignored by the media, and while it may only affect the Washington D.C. metro area now, it could be laying the blueprint for future legislation across the country.

Facebook Fights Gag Order On Grounds Of Free Speech

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

Government law agencies place gag orders on technology companies in general and social media companies in particular.

Facebook is fighting a gag order right now over search warrants on Facebook users.

Reuters reports Facebook fights U.S. Gag Order that it says Chills Free Speech.

Facebook Inc is challenging a gag order from a U.S. court that is preventing the company from talking about three government search warrants that it said pose a threat to freedom of speech, according to court documents.

Facebook said it wants to notify three users about the search warrants seeking their communications and information and also give those users an opportunity to object to the warrants, according to a filing in a Washington, D.C., appeals court seen by Reuters.

“We believe there are important First Amendment concerns with this case, including the government’s refusal to let us notify three people of broad requests for their account information in connection with public events,” Facebook said in a statement on Monday.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees certain rights including freedom of speech.

William Miller, a spokesman for U.S. prosecutors, declined to comment.

Facebook decided to challenge the gag order around the three warrants because free speech was at stake and because the events underlying the government’s investigation were generally known to the public already, Facebook said in the undated court document.

The precise nature of the government’s investigation is not known. One document in the case said the timing of proceedings coincides with charges against people who protested President Donald Trump’s inauguration in January.

Freedom of Speech vs Gag Orders

The NSA also places gag orders over when it demands backdoor entries into routers and phones. Companies are not allowed to even mention the demands.

I side with Facebook, Apple, Google, and Microsoft, so much so that I wish one of these companies would simply defy these incessant gag orders and speak up rather than challenge the orders in court.

Judge Orders Google to Hand over Data on Anyone Who Searched for a Certain Name

(ANTIMEDIA) Hennepin County, MN — A Minnesota judge recently signed a search warrant ordering Google, Inc. to hand over personal information on anyone who searched a specific name, a decision that could set an alarming precedent that would render the fourth amendment virtually ineffective with regard to online privacy.

We"re revolutionizing the news industry, but we need your help! Click here to get started.

According to the application for the warrant, filed by Detective David Lindland of the Edina Police Department, authorities are trying to locate an individual who used a fake passport to trick a credit union into transferring $28,000 out of an Edina man’s account. Police say the passport image showed up in a Google search but was not available on Yahoo or Bing. The warrant does not mention whether or not they searched Ask.com, DuckDuckGo, Ixquick, or any other of the many search engines available to the public.

The warrant, signed by Hennepin County Senior Judge Gary Larson, demands Google disclose any and all information on any person who searched the victim’s name from December 1st, 2016, to January 7th, 2017. According to the warrant:

“The user/subscriber information [is] to include, but not limited to: name(s), address(es), telephone number(s), date(s) of birth, social security numbers, email addresses, payment information, account information, IP addresses, and MAC addresses of the person(s) who requested/completed the search.”

The documents indicate Google was first served with an administrative subpoena requesting the information, which it promptly rejected. A spokesperson for Google responded to questions about the case in an email to The Register, saying, “We aren’t able to comment on specific cases, but we will always push back when we receive excessively broad requests for data about our users.”

A criminal defense staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Stephanie Lacambra, commented on the unprecedented scope of the warrant:

“As a former public defender for over a decade, I can say that this kind of warrant appears both unusual, in that it was approved in the first place without first establishing as a threshold matter that the suspect perpetrator used Google to obtain the photo used in the fraudulent passport in the first place, and overbroad, in that it calls for a dragnet production of the private information of all querents who searched a particular name within a five week time frame without any further limiting factors.”

While Google has pushed back against government overreach in the past, the company’s most recent transparency report shows they comply with more than 70% of  government requests for user information.

Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo