by Glen C. Davis

Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that GPS tracking devises violated the Constitutional Fourth Amendment guarantees because people have a reasonable right to privacy in their cars. As I understand the ruling, however, if you have OnStar® or one of the other government tracking devices already in your car, they can track you through that system.

On January 4th, the Denver Post reported on another example of the courts grappling with the Bill of Rights in the digital age. And the case is shaking up civil liberties groups.

The case involves Ramona Fricosu who was allegedly involved in a fraud scheme along with her husband. One of the items seized by the prosecutors was her laptop computer. The laptop, however, was encrypted and the prosecutor could not retrieve the contents. Fricosu refused to give the password citing her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

John Ingold of the Denver Post reported on the 24th, “In an order issued Monday, U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn said requiring Ramona Fricosu to provide an unencrypted version of her laptop’s hard drive to prosecutors does not violate her rights against self-incrimination. Instead, Blackburn ruled that providing the unlocked laptop wouldn’t be self-incriminatory because it wouldn’t prove anything that the government doesn’t already know.”

Hanni Fakhoury, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, still thinks the Fifth Amendment applies in this case, according to the article. The case is going to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

This is actually a compelling case and one likely to make it to the Supreme Court. On the one hand, you do have a right not to provide incriminating evidence in the Fifth Amendment. That is why signing anything “under penalty of perjury” is quite frankly unconstitutional. You cannot be compelled to sign away your rights.

On the other hand, the Fourth Amendment guarantees, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated,…” While the police today have pretty much the same power that the “Redcoats” had prior to the revolution—which was among the chief complaints of the colonists—they still must obtain a warrant from a judge. In this case, they did that and the seized computer was among the evidence for their case. Whether or not the computer and the location of the computer was specified on the warrant as is REQUIRED by the Fourth Amendment is another topic.

In this case, I would have to agree with District Judge Blackburn. Apparently the laptop was just another piece of evidence in the pieces of evidence that they already had.

Let us set another scenario, however. Let us say that a person is sitting and using a wireless laptop at a coffee shop. A police officer wanders over and the person presses a button and locks the computer. Does the officer have a “probable cause” to order the person to unlock the laptop? No. This would violate both the Fourth and Fifth Amendment. If the officer “sees” something that the person is doing and knows that it is illegal, he may then have probable cause to arrest and cause the person to unlock the computer. He already sees it and knows it is there. If the coffee shop owner, however, sees actual evidence that the person is using the computer for illegal purposes and reports it, then the police have enough for a warrant and to cause the person to unlock.

Granted, in the case of Fricosu, the prosecutors and police have not “seen” the contents so they do not “know” there is anything related to the case on the computer at all. That may be an “out” in this case. Still, I believe there is enough “probable cause” that this does not represent a violation of either the Fourth or Fifth Amendment. Does the lock on your front door, for example, give you a Fifth Amendment right to keep officers from performing their duty after they have complied with the Fourth Amendment?

One question that might come up, however, is what about online storage sites? If a person stores the data at an online site that is not listed on the search warrant, can the police access it or use it as evidence? I would think not until they obtained another warrant for the evidence. Of course, that would be served to the provider of the service, not the defendant.

For those who like the smell of paper in the morning, our recent Treatises on Warfare contains a collection of documents from various eras of warfare. Concerning the Militia is still available and contains a wealth of information on the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

We have recently added Essays on the Constitution of the United States by Paul Leicester Ford with additional material and editing by Glen C. Davis. The “government approved” Federalist Papers were not the final word on the subject. See what some of the other Federalists and Anti-Federalists had to say about this document and the Bill of Rights. This book comes in regular print and a large print edition.

The fictional suspense novel A Shroud of Evidence is also still available. It is now available at the iBookstore for your electronic device.

So take your pick and save up to $50 until December 14th.

6×9 Paperback
8×10 Large Print Edition
Check out all of my titles!

Offer ends September 15, 2011.

Disclaimer: Use coupon code AUGUST305 at checkout and receive 15% off Essays on the Constitution of the United States. Maximum savings with this promotion is $100. You can only use the code once per account, and you can’t use this coupon in combination with other coupon codes. This great offer ends on September 15, 2011 at 11:59 PM so try not to procrastinate! While very unlikely we do reserve the right to change or revoke this offer at anytime, and of course we cannot offer this coupon where it is against the law to do so. Finally, Lulu incurs the cost of this discount, so it does not impact the Author’s proceeds of the book.

Now available

The States were used to autonomy. Many were so satisfied with this arrangement that the preferred to remain under the Articles of Confederation. There were many opponents to the new Constitution of the United States known as Anti-Federalists.

The Federalists were those in favor of the new Constitution and its “limited” form of government. They never anticipated their posterity twisting of the words of the Constitution to eliminate the freedoms they had fought for.

But the Anti-Federalists did. “It might be here shewn, that the power in the federal legislative, to raise and support armies at pleasure, as well in peace as in war, and their controul over the militia, tend, not only to a consolidation of the government, but the destruction of liberty,” a writer who wrote as Brutus complained.

Essays on the Constitution was edited by Paul Leicester Ford and published in 1842. It is an intriguing look at the arguments in the newspapers of the time on the subject.

It seems that Rhode Island was not favored among the several States. Mr. Ford added a letter from a writer for Rhode Island.

I edited the work further giving it a new index and adding the works of Brutus which were referred to in the original work, but never added. I added, also, the objections by Elbridge Gerry, Patrick Henry and Colonel George Mason—All of which refused to sign the Constitution.

This book is an interesting view of the battle for ratification of the Constitution and a good read for anyone studying the history of the United States from those who lived it.

SEE ALSO: Anti-federalist are “Political Jesuits” under Satanick influence

One that I like is that you can add the TARGET=”_blank” tag to the link references simply by checking the box marked “Open link in new tab/window.”

I like the new style of the dashboard. It seems a much “cleaner” look.

The only problem that I have found is that I cannot find the “kitchen sink.” The button that opens the toolbar with all of the neat features in Visual mode.

I had to update this site twice to get the new link feature and I wonder if there is a problem with the update feature.

I finished an article concerning the Tenth Amendment which I may be adding to my articles at Amazines soon. I am waiting word to see if a web site wants to use it.

I am working on a reprint of Essays on the Constitution of the United States originally edited by Paul Leicester Ford. It contains papers by Federalists and Anti-Federalist debating the passage of the Constitution. I added the works of Brutus to the mix.

These are not the Federalist papers you are familiar with. These are written by various authors to newspapers around the country. Right now, with the current index, it is about 330 pages, but I expect that to grow. I am trying to keep the work below $15, however. It should be available through LULU by the end of July. You can check the link to my bookstore.

I started this editing project because I needed some source material for another fiction idea I am formulating. I am, also, working on a science fiction short story for fun.

And, I thank God that I am getting actual work. It won’t make me rich, but I will be able to eat for one more month.

I hope that everyone out there is finding their blessings growing.

While Glen’s work supported most of my opinions, it conflicted with others. But I must say, Glen made his case! I found myself enlightened and with the facts he presented I had no choice but to change my view. Bravo, Glen!

I encourage every American to read this book.
—Paul Arnett, Two Dogs Publishing

Order any of my books from now until April 30 and receive the shipping of a single book free up to $4.99.

Use coupon code APRILMAIL305 at checkout, select Mail Shipping and receive the single book shipping cost free. Maximum savings with this promotion is $4.99. Print and tax amounts are excluded. You can only use the code once per account, and you can’t use this coupon in combination with other coupon codes. This great offer ends on April 30, 2011 at 11:59 PM so try not to procrastinate! While very unlikely we do reserve the right to change or revoke this offer at anytime, and of course we cannot offer this coupon where it is against the law to do so. Transaction must be in US dollars.