Law Enforecement

“DRONE WARS”: THE BATTLE for MIDWESTERN SKIES

November 17, 2015
Drones, Law Enforecement, Privacy

Travis Waller, MJLST Staffer

Given the new Star Wars: The Force Awakens film upcoming this December, introducing a discussion on recent policies involving drone regulation seemed like a worthwhile addition to this week’s blog.

While the robotic “drones” of our day and age are certainly not cut from the same titanium alloy as George Lucas’ quasi-humanoid “droid” characters in many of his films, North Dakota may well be on it’s way to starting it’s own “robotic army” of sorts.

A friend and colleague from the University of Connecticut School of Law brought to my attention an article by Ben Woods, discussing the 2015 ND House Bill proposing the arming of drones with “non-lethal weaponry” for police functions. With the shocking amount of police deaths reported in this country last year, North Dakota may well be leading the way in finding an innovative alternative to placing human officers in potentially dangerous confrontations. However, this benefit does not come without a cost. As presented in a segment by Ashley Maas of the NY Times, drone regulation is still up in the air (excuse the pun). Only within the last year has the FAA determined that they are able to take action against civilian violators of drone regulations.

Moreover, with recent reports involving the hacking of automated vehicles, as well as Maas’ examples of civilians using drone technology for less than constructive purposes, placing dangerous technology on these machines may well develop into a major public policy concern.

While it is this author’s humble opinion that a fair amount of time exists before we, as a people, need be concerned with an Invasion of Naboo type situation, this may be exactly the type of situation where more time is needed to allow for the security measures around the technology, as well as the legal infrastructure surrounding drone regulation, to catch up to the state legislatures hopes for drone usage. As the matter stands now, allowing drones to be used in a police capacity risks a host of possible problems, including potential 4^th amendment violations, and even increasing an already shockingly high risk of civilian causalities related to police activity.

With the law having already gone into effect on August 1^st of this year, we will just have to wait and see how these issues play out.

Until next time,

-Travis

*Special Thanks to Monica Laskos, University of Connecticut School of Law ’17, for the idea to pursue this topic.

Are Warrantless Cell Phone Searches Constitutional?

May 16, 2014
Criminal Law, Law Enforecement

Jennifer Warfield, MJLST Staff

In “Constitutionalizing Email Privacy by Information Access” from Volume 9, Issue 1 of the Minnesota Journal of Law, Science, & Technology, Manish Kumar discussed the unique Fourth Amendment issues raised by governmental access to electronic communications, specifically emails. Similar privacy issues are now being analyzed and reviewed by the Supreme Court in the context of warrantless searches of cell phones by law enforcement in two cases: Riley v. California, No. 13-132 and United States v. Wurie, No. 13-212.

The courts have traditionally allowed warrantless searches pursuant to the Search of Person Incident to Arrest (SPIA) exception to the Fourth Amendment. Under this doctrine a police officer may search an arrestee’s person incident to the arrest and seize and search any personal property in his or her possession at the time of the arrest. Such searches are justified under the theory that they protect officers by allowing them to search for weapons and preserve evidence. The Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits have upheld warrantless searches of cell phones under the SPIA doctrine on the grounds that a cell phone is analogous to a container like a backpack or wallet, which the Supreme Court has long deemed searchable. Other courts have held that modern cell phones cannot be compared to traditional containers given the vast amount of sensitive data contained within them, and that less intrusive measures can be used in the name of data preservation such as Faraday Bags or “airplane mode,” which both prevent internet signals from reaching a phone to prevent remote wiping.

The specific issues before the Supreme Court in Riley and Wurie are respectively: 1) whether the Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated when he was convicted for attempted murder based on the police’s search of his smartphone after he was pulled over for having an expired auto registration; and 2) whether evidence gathered after the police inspected a drug dealer’s call log should have been thrown out by the federal appeals court in Boston. These cases provide the Supreme Court an opportunity to clarify the meaning of the Fourth Amendment in the age of smartphones, and will shed light on how similar devices like tablets and laptops will be treated by courts and police officers in the future.

Breathalyzers v. Blood-Alcohol Tests

March 12, 2014
Law Enforecement

Jenny Nomura, MJLST Managing Editor

In the MJLST volume 11 spring edition, David Liebow discussed the difficulties of obtaining the source code of breathalyzers in DWI cases. In his note “DWI Source Code Motions after Underdahl” Liebow argues for easier breathalyzer source code access for DWI defendants. Obtaining the breathalyzer source code could help DWI defendants show the unreliability of the machine. In the years following the note, not much appears to have changed. And in some states it might not change for a long time, if ever.

The Minnesota Supreme Court received a case in which the source code of the Intoxilyzer 5000EN was in question (In re Source Code Evidentiary Hearings in Implied Consent Matters, 816 N.W.2d 525 (Minn. 2012)). The District Court had accepted the testimony of the state’s expert witness that the device was accurate, and the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed that holding. In a dissent, Justice Page stated that “a defendant may not raise the source code as a potential cause of an inaccurate or deficient sample.” Other states have reached a very different conclusion: that maybe breathalyzers shouldn’t be relied on. In Pennsylvania, a county judge held breathalyzers were not accurate above a reading of 0.15.

So what does the future hold for breathalyzers? There is a tangle of recent case law that might play a role in determining whether police use breathalyzers or blood-alcohol tests. In Pennsylvania, police have switched from relying on breathalyzers to blood-alcohol tests in response to the county judge ruling. However, in a recent United States Supreme Court case, Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013), the Court held police must obtain a search warrant or have exigent circumstances to have a blood-alcohol test done for a person arrested for a DWI. That case seems to push police back to relying on breathalyzers. But the Minnesota Supreme Court held in Minnesota v. Brooks, 838 N.W.2d 563 (Minn. 2013) that Brooks gave consent voluntarily and freely at the time of the arrest to submit to the blood-alcohol test, and therefore the police didn’t need a search warrant or exigent circumstances.

If police officers are able to obtain a blood-alcohol test, then the prosecution might not need to rely on the breathalyzer results in order to obtain a conviction. If the breathalyzer results “don’t matter” (“don’t matter” in the sense that the results aren’t used as evidence in court) then maybe the source code of the breathalyzer machines also “doesn’t matter.” Maybe the new focus will be on the blood-alcohol tests.

It’s a Bird, No, It’s a Plane, No, It’s … an Amazon Delivery-Drone?

January 29, 2014
Law Enforecement

by Katelyn DeRuyter, UMN Law Student, MJLST Note and Comment Editor

I recently typed “legal issues drone usage” into Google and was surprised by what I found. Along with several articles on the U.S.’s drone program (as expected), I was also greeted by reports of an Amazon project to have unmanned aerial drones make deliveries. For those who don’t know, Amazon is an online retailer of … well, almost everything. This drone project, first announced on CBS’ ’60 Minutes’, is called “Prime Air” and may be viable in as few as 4-5 years. While there is wide speculation over whether this project is real or just a publicity stunt, it does present some interesting legal and law-enforcement considerations.

First, the reported facts:

The drones would be autonomous, meaning they would not be remotely piloted. Rather, the small rotorcrafts would use GPS technology to travel to and from delivery addresses. The drones currently being tested have a range of 10 miles and can lift packages weighing up to 5 lbs. Such packages account for approximately 86% of Amazon’s deliveries. It is easy to see the business advantages of such a delivery program. However, is this program currently legal?

The Legal Landscape:

Police and various governmental organizations are allowed to fly drones as long as they have obtained FAA approval. Non-governmental use of drones is limited to hobbyists and there are strict restrictions. For example, hobby drones cannot go above 400 feet and must stay within the operator’s sight. This will soon change. In early 2012, Congress passed the Reauthorization Act, a $63 billion funding bill for 4 years of FAA funding. One of the provisions of this Act is that the FAA must allow for the wider use of drones for both governmental and commercial use. Specifically, the FAA must allow for commercial use of drones by Sept. 30, 2015.

Given the Reauthorization Act, it seems probable that Amazon’s Prime Air, and other similar programs, may soon be legal. However, are such programs advisable? Along with potential liability issues if the drones malfunction and cause injury, there are broader policy issues to be addressed.

Law Enforcement Challenges:

The ability for drone deliveries may be a vast complication for law enforcement. By cutting out USPS, FedEx, UPS and other more “traditional” shipping methods, drone deliveries may also circumvent a lot of the screening and tracking that occurs with shipping. These screening and tracking systems are vital to law enforcement’s efforts to detect, stop and prosecute a variety of crimes – spanning from drug trafficking to bioterrorism.

If the law enforcement hurdles can be overcome, and I think it is likely that they can, drone-deliveries will probably become commonplace. It will be interesting to watch how the law adapts to fit this evolving technology.

Please feel free to leave any comments and thoughts!

Cybersecurity: Serious threat or “technopanic”?

April 17, 2013
Cyber Security, Internet, Law Enforecement

by Bryan Dooley, UMN Law Student, MJLST Staff

While most would likely agree that threats to cybersecurity pose sufficient risk to warrant some level of new regulation, opinions vary widely on the scope and nature of an appropriate response. The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, one of several proposed legislative measures intended to address the problem, has drawn widespread criticism. Concerns voiced by opponents have centered on privacy and the potential for misuse of shared information. Some fear the legislation creates the potential for additional harm by allowing or encouraging private parties to launch counterattacks against perceived security threats, with no guarantee they will always hit their intended targets.

In Technopanics, Threat Inflation, and the Danger of an Information Technology Precautionary Principle</strong>, published in Issue 14.1 of the Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, Adam Thierer discusses the danger of misguided regulation in response to new and potentially misunderstood technological developments. The discussion centers on what Thierer terms “technopanics”–hasty and often irrational pushes to address a problem in the face of uncertainty and misinformation, sometimes intentionally disseminated by parties who hope to benefit financially or advance a social agenda.

In the context of cyber security, Thierer argues that advocates of an aggressive regulatory response have exaggerated the potential for harm by using language such as “digital Pearl Harbor” and “cyber 9/11.” He argues technopanics have influenced public discourse about a number of other issues, including online pornography, privacy concerns associated with targeted advertising, and the effects of violent video games on young people. While these panics often pass with little or no real lasting effect, Thierer expresses concern that an underlying suspicion toward new technological developments could mature into a precautionary principal for information technology. This would entail a rush to regulate in response to any new development with a perceived potential for harm, which Thierer argues would slow social development and prevent or delay introduction of beneficial technologies.

It’s an interesting discussion. Whether or not cyber attacks pose the potential for widespread death and destruction, there is significant potential for economic damage and disruption, as well as theft or misuse of private or sensitive information. As in any case of regulation in the face of uncertainty, there is also clear potential that an overly hasty or inadequately informed response will go too far or carry unintended consequences.

Threats From North Korea: Switching Our Focus From Nuclear Weapons to Websites

April 8, 2013
Cyber Security, Internet, Law Enforecement

by Bryan Morben, UMN Law Student, MJLST Staff

There has been a lot of attention on North Korea and the possibility of a nuclear war lately. In fact, as recently as April 4, 2013, news broke that the increasingly hostile country moved medium-range missiles to its east coastline. It is reported that the missiles do not have enough range to hit the U.S. mainland, but is well within range of the South Korean capital. Tensions have been running high for several months, especially when the North took the liberty to shred the sixty year old armistice that ended the Korean War, and warned the world that “the next step was an act of ‘merciless’ military retaliation against its enemies.”

But perhaps the use of physical force by leader Kim Jong Un is not the only, or even the most important threat, from North Korea that the United States and its allies should be worried about. Despite the popular impression that North Korea is technologically inept, the regime boasts a significant cyber arsenal. The country has jammed GPS signals and also reportedly conducted cyber terrorism operations against media and financial institutions in the South. North Korea employs a host of sophisticated computer hackers capable of producing anonymous attacks against a variety of targets including military, governmental, educational, and commercial institutions. This ability to vitiate identity is one of the most powerful and dangerous parts about cyber warfare that isn’t possible in the physical world.

Susan Brenner is an expert in the field cyberwar, cybercrime, and cyber terrorism. She has been writing about how and why the institutions modern nation-states rely on to fend off the threats of war, crime, and terrorism have become ineffective as threats have migrated into cyberspace for over half a decade. Her article, Cyber-threats and the Limits of Bureaucratic Control, in Issue 14.1 of the Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology outlines why we need a new threat-control strategy and how such a strategy could be structured and implemented. A strategy like the one Brenner recommends could help protect us from losing a cyberbattle with North Korea that most people aren’t even aware could happen.

Time for a New Approach to Cyber Security?

February 18, 2013
Cyber Security, Internet, Law Enforecement

by Kenzie Johnson, UMN Law Student, MJLST Managing Editor

The recent announcements by several large news outlets including the New York Times, Washington Post, Bloomberg News, and the Wall Street Journal reporting that they have been the victims of cyber-attacks have yet again brought cyber security into the news. These attacks reportedly all originated in China and were aimed at monitoring news reporting of Chinese issues. In particular, the New York Times announced that Chinese hackers persistently attacked their servers for a period of four months and obtained passwords for reporters and other Times employees. The Times reported that the commencement of the attack coincided with a story it published regarding mass amounts of wealth accumulated by the family of Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao.

It is not only western news outlets that are the targets of recent cyber-attacks. Within the past weeks, the United States Department of Energy and Federal Reserve both announced that hackers had recently penetrated their servers and acquired sensitive information.

This string of high-profile cyber-attacks raises the need for an improved legal and response structure to deal with the growing threat of cyber-attacks. In the forthcoming Winter 2013 issue of Minnesota Journal of Law, Science, and Technology, Susan W. Brenner discusses these issues in an article entitled “Cyber-Threats and the Limits of Bureaucratic Control.” Brenner discusses the nature, causes, and consequences of cyber-threats if left unchecked. Brenner also analyzes alternative approaches to the United States’ current cyber-threat control regime, criticizes current proposals for improvements to the current regime, and proposes alternative approaches. As illustrated by these recent cyber-attacks, analysis of these issues is becoming more important to protect sensitive government data as well as private entities from cyber-threats.

Free Consortium Event, Nov. 15: Should the Science of Adolescent Brain Development Inform Legal Policy?

November 14, 2012
Event, Law Enforecement

by MJLST

Studies of adolescent brain development have influenced debates on issues such as the constitutionality of the juvenile death penalty, if sentencing juveniles to life without the possibility of parole is moral, to whether states should raise the legal driving age, to permitting minors to obtain an abortion without parental consent. In this lecture, Prof. Steinberg will examine whether burgeoning research on adolescent brain development should influence legal policy.

Prof. Laurence Steinberg, PhD, Distinguished University Professor and Laura H. Carnell Professor of Psychology at Temple University will offer an overview of the major changes in brain structure and function that take place during adolescence, and discuss what we do, and do not, gain with respect to our understanding of adolescence from neuroscience beyond what we already know from behavioral science. After applying this analysis to the specific case of adolescent criminal culpability, he will consider how developmental neuroscience might influence questions concerning the drawing of legal age boundaries more generally.

Commentators include Susanna Blumenthal, JD, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Law and History University of Minnesota and A. David Redish, PhD, Professor, Department of Neuroscience University of Minnesota. Moderators include Michael Georgieff, MD, Professor of Pediatrics and Child Psychology; Steve Kelley, JD, Senior Fellow, Humphrey School of Public Affairs; and Akshay Rao, PhD, Professor, Carlson School of Management

Thursday, November 15, 2012
11:30am-1pm
Coffman Memorial Union Theater

FBI Face Recognition Concerns Privacy Advocates

September 19, 2012
Internet, Law Enforecement, Privacy, Social Media

by Rebecca Boxhorn, Consortium Research Associate, Former MJLST Staff & Editor

Helen of Troy’s face launched a thousand ships, but yours might provide probable cause. The FBI is developing a nationwide facial recognition database that has privacy experts fretting about the definition of privacy in a technologically advanced society. The $1 billion Next Generation Identification initiative seeks to harness the power of biometric data in the fight against crime. Part of the initiative is the creation of a facial photograph database that will allow officials to match pictures to mug shots, electronically identify suspects in crowds, or even find fugitives on Facebook. The use of biometrics in law enforcement is nothing new, of course. Fingerprint and DNA evidence have led to the successful incarceration of thousands. What privacy gurus worry about is the power of facial recognition technology and the potential destruction of anonymity.

Most facial recognition technology relies on the matching of “face prints” to reference photographs. Your face print is composed of as many as 80 measurements, including nose width, eye socket depth, and cheekbone shape. . Sophisticated computer software then matches images or video to a stored face print and any data accompanying that face print. Accuracy of facial recognition programs varies, from accuracy estimates as low as 61% to as high as 95%.

While facial recognition technology may prove useful for suspect identification, your face print could reveal much more than your identity to someone with a cell phone camera and a Wi-Fi connection. Researchers at Carnegie Melon University were able to link face print data to deeply personal information using the Internet: Facebook pages, dating profiles, even social security numbers! Although the FBI has assured the public that it only intends to include criminals in its nationwide database, this has not quieted concerns in the privacy community. Innocence before proof of guilt does not apply to the collection of biometrics. Police commonly collect fingerprints from arrestees, and California’s Proposition 69 allows police to collect DNA samples from all people they arrest, no matter the charge, circumstances, or eventual guilt or innocence. With the legality of pre-conviction DNA collection largely unsettled, the legal implications of new facial recognition technology are anything but certain.

It is not difficult to understand, then, why facial recognition has captured the attention of the federal government, including Senator Al Franken of Minnesota. During a Judiciary Committee hearing in July, Senator Franken underscored the free speech and privacy implications of the national face print database. From cataloging political demonstration attendees to misidentifications, the specter of facial recognition technology has privacy organizations and Senator Franken concerned.

But is new facial recognition technology worth all the fuss? Instead of tin foil hats, should we don ski masks? The Internet is inundated with deeply private information voluntarily shared by individuals. Thousands of people log on to Patientslikeme.com to describe their diagnoses and symptoms; 23andme.com allows users to connect to previously unknown relatives based on shared genetic information. Advances in technology seem to be chipping away at traditional notions of privacy. Despite all of this sharing, however, many users find solace and protection in the anonymity of the Internet. The ability to hide your identity and, indeed, your face is a defining feature of the Internet and the utility and chaos it provides. But as Omer Tene and Jules Polonetsky identify in their article “To Track or ‘Do Not Track’: Advancing Transparency and Individual Control in Online Behavioral Advertising,” online advertising “fuels the majority of free content and services online” while amassing enormous amounts of data on users. Facial recognition technology only exacerbates concerns about Internet privacy by providing the opportunity to harvest user-generated data, provided under the guise of anonymity, to give faces to usernames.

Facial recognition technology undoubtedly provides law enforcement officers with a powerful crime-fighting tool. As with all new technology, it is easy to overstate the danger of governmental abuse. Despite FBI assurances to use facial recognition technology only to catch criminals, concerns regarding privacy and domestic spying persist. Need the average American fear the FBI’s facial recognition initiative? Likely not. To be safe, however, it might be time to invest in those oversized sunglasses you have been pining after.

« 1 2

Law Enforecement

Contact Information