Get A Warrant

HB150 was defeated yesterday, but its originators are not taking “Fourth Amendment” for an answer. A representative wrote me today with this information:

“Brad Daw and the AG’s office spoke to me late in the afternoon about their desire to bring HB 150 back in a slimmed down version that they believe will get the votes to pass. Instead of expanding the scope of the investigative activities to all felonies, they want to include two specific crimes above and beyond what the current statute includes: kidnapping of a child and cyberstalking.”

My response is, “Fine, get a warrant.” What part of the Fourth Amendment do Representative Daw and Attorney General Shurtleff not understand? These crimes are surely heinous, but do not preclude the need for a warrant. Judges are available 24/7 to sign warrants for information. Why are they insistent on sidestepping the Constitution to get information from Internet Service Providers?

6 thoughts on “Get A Warrant

  1. Pingback: HB 150: Rep Daw Not Taking No For An Answer | Saintless

  2. Glad HB150 got defeated and [sadly] not at all surprised that they will make an altered attempt. Disgusting the way some people try, time and time again, to subvert reasonable measures. I couldn’t agree with you simple “Fine, get a warrant” statement.

  3. Read the story of Rachel Guyon’s run-in with the Utah Attorney General’s Office to understand where the initiative for HB 150 – Administrative Subpoena Amendments is coming from.

    Mark Shurtleff often says that his office doesn’t like to lose. His actions show that when his office does lose, it works to change the rules so that his office will win the next time out … procedural protections for the citizen accused be damned.

  4. Yeah, the problem with this bill is that it defines the entire apparatus of the ISP as a target for the search and seizure of the information specified. This includes emails and the email headers that are part of the email themselves. If this was limited to log files, accounting information, transaction logs, or other such mechanisms, perhaps this bill would have had life. Perhaps the next incarnation will have those limits in place but it still won’t give the AG what he wants until he can get at the emails themselves. The scope was too reaching and it fails because deep down it is wrong and a warrant is the proper tool.

    In the end, a majority of the people in the State Legislature had enough sense to do the right thing.

    “The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.” -H. L. Mencken

  5. Pingback: HB 150: A Violation of Privacy « Utah Legislature Watch

Comments are closed.