The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court

By: Timothy P. Flynn

A secret court; something very offensive to our Democracy.  Even as lawyers, we here at the Law Blogger had never heard of such a stealth tribunal until Edward Snowden blew the whistle on one of its rulings [i.e. the FISA Court's "classified" order to turn over all of Verizon's phone tracing data to the NSA].

Actually, the FISA Court has been around since the 1978 passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.  Following the September 11th terrorist attacks on our country back in 2001, FISA has been repeatedly amended, primarily through the Patriot Act.

Not surprisingly, since 9/11, FISA has expanded steadily along with the powers of the FISA Court.  The Bush Administration based its warrantless wiretapping practice on FISA; the Obama Administration, to the surprise of many of its supporters, has not only continued the program, but expanded the scope of electronic surveillance to apparently everyone in America.

The Edward Snowden case has shined a light on the 11-member FISA Court.  What that light has shown is that the secret court has evolved from providing quick case-by-case rulings on electronic surveillance scenarios, to building a body of "classified" constitutional decisions that are now hefting the weight of judicial precedent; all without a scintilla of public scrutiny.

We here at the Law Blogger would like to know:  who is on this secret court?  What decisions are they making that may affect our right to privacy?  And do we even still have a right to privacy while connected to the internet or connected to a cell phone?

The FISA Court's recent classified decisions have become so constitutionally significant that a recent NYT article compares the secret court to a "parallel Supreme Court".

One example of the shrouded jurisprudence emanating from the FISA Court is the application of the "special needs" exception to the warrant requirement of the 4th Amendment in terrorism cases.  Normally, law enforcement cannot conduct a search or seizure of a person without a warrant based on probable cause.

In 1989, SCOTUS created the "special needs" exception to the 4th Amendment's warrant requirement in the context of public transportation.  SCOTUS ruled that public railway workers could be drug-tested by the government without a warrant on the basis that the minimal privacy intrusion of the worker was superseded by the need for public transportation safety.

Apply this logic to the modern terrorism cases, and any matter that evokes our "national security" opens the door for the FISA Court to invoke the "special needs" exception.  This fast-expanding exception is now poised to swallow the 4th Amendment's warrant requirement whole.

Although we do not get to read the secret court's decisions, from which there is a very limited and rarely used appeal process, we are told -via the NYT- that a sturdy pillar of jurisprudence and precedent has arisen from the FISA Court: the collection of Metadata does not offend the 4th Amendment.

Well, ok, if the Star Chamber says so.  But we here at the Law Blogger thought that ours was an adversarial justice system characterized by thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.

Post Script: October 15, 2013 - The FISA has given the green light in several of its recent cases for the NSA to continue to collect cell phone use data on U.S. Citizens.  We wonder if our emails are also subject to NSA scrutiny...

www.clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: 4th Amendment,Edward Snowden,FISA Court,Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court,metadata,Patriot Act,privacy,SCOTUS,search and seizure

RadioShack Stung in Privacy Suit

Say it ain't so.  RadioShack may have hacked.

In an interesting privacy rights law suit being prosecuted right here in Detroit, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Radio Shack just lost its motion for Rule 12b(6) summary judgment. 
The case, pending before Judge Victoria Roberts, now heads to trial.

The claim is that a RadioShack customer purchased a new cell phone and had his data transferred at a RadioShack store; the old phone was to be recycled.  A RadioShack employee allegedly accessed the images on the customer's old phone, saw some apparently objectionable pics from the customer taken at his place of employment, and in a "Big Brother"-like maneuver, sent the pics to the customer's employer.

The customer was fired and he is now suing RadioShack for violating his right to privacy and for breach of RadioShack's own cell phone disposal privacy policy.

Noting that very little discovery has been conducted in the case, chastizing RadioShack's counsel for raising two seminal "sufficiency-of-the-pleadings" cases in a reply brief, and intimating that questions of fact for a jury may exist, the Court denied RadioShack's motion for summary judgment.  The complete order is here.

One of the fact questions spotted by Judge Roberts was the scope of the consent the customer may have given to the store in accessing his images on his old cell phone. 

Imagine going into a RadioShack outlet to simply transfer your cell phone data [i.e. your digital life as you know it] to a new phone, and you wind-up getting fired because some entry level employee decides to police the content of your data, and forward selected portions of that data to your employer.  My guess is that this case will probably settle, and confidentially. 

In my humble yet professional opinion, RadioShack has some significant exposure on this claim.  At least they would if I was on the jury.

If you think your right to privacy has been compromised on-line and would like a free consultation to assess your potential claim, contact our law firm.

http://www.waterfordlegal.com/

info@waterfordlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: Judge Victoria Roberts,privacy,privacy rights,RadioShack

Anonymous Internet Critics

This blog has covered the defamation lawsuit filed by the Cooley Law School against one if it's more vocal critics; one of the legion of graduates that has trashed the law school in a blog titled "The Thomas M. Cooley Law School Scam".  This post brings our readers up to date with some important recent developments in the case.

Cooley's defamation suit, pending in the Ingham County Circuit Court, was assigned to Circuit Judge Clinton Canady III. Cooley is represented by the Miller Canfield law firm and the anonymous blogger, using the pseudonym "Rockstar05", is represented by Berkeley, MI attorney John Hermann.

For their part, Miller Canfield has been vigorously prosecuting their cause of action, issuing subpoenas in two states [Michigan and California] to the Rockstar05's Internet service provider, seeking to rip the lid off the blogger's identity.

In September and October, hearings were conducted on Rockstar05's motion to quash Cooley's subpoenas.  Somewhere along the way, the internet service provider in California apparently made an inadvertent disclosure of the blogger's identity to the Miller Canfield firm, who immediately moved the court to amend the complaint, seeking to add the now-disclosed individual to the suit.

Judge Canady initially sequestered the pleadings and documents that referenced Rockstar05's identity while it considered supplemental briefings on this First Amendment issue.  In October, however, the lower court denied Rockstar05's motion to quash the subpoena, providing time for defendant to lodge an interlocatory appeal, and allowing an amicus [various media organizations] to intervene in the case.

Rocktar05 has appealed Judge Canady's decision relative to the subpoena.  The media has filed a hard-hitting amicus brief.  Miller Canfield's response on behalf of Cooley Law School is expected to be filed any day now.

This blog predicts that the Michigan Court of Appeals will grant leave for this issue to be decided; apparently one of first impression here in Michigan.

At stake is the ability of vocal critics of a "public figure" to express their opinion anonymously, without the fear of having their mask pulled off, and their identity disclosed.

You'll have to stay tuned for the results on this important case.  It could likely take a few years to wind its way through the court system.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: Cooley Law School,defamation,First Amendment,Ingham County Circuit Court,John Hermann,Judge Clinton Canady,Miller Canfield,privacy

Clarkston Legal Presents at ICLE's 10th Annual Family Law Instutite

On Friday, I presented on the topic of social media in the family law context to 500 Michigan lawyers attending ICLE's 10th Annual Family Law Institute at the Inn at St. John's in Plymouth, MI.

Part of the presentation dealt with the national and local "influencers" in the area of social media and the law; particularly family law.  Some of the more dynamic profiles of attorneys utilizing the social media were  profiled and discussed.

Lawyers are utilizing sites like Google+, YouTube, Linked In and Facebook to promote their content, expertise and profile.  Law-related sites such as JD Supra, Nolo, and Avvo were also profiled.

The second half of the presentation touched on issues of privacy and the expectation of privacy, or lack thereof.  The top social media sites referenced above install pieces of tracking software onto users computers.  The WSJ shined a bright light on this practice in its 2010 series, "What They Know".

Forensic recovery of electronically stored information (ESI) was one of the areas of primary focus.  Many divorce clients now present with information obtained through a violation of the spouse's privacy rights; the attorney must not accept such evidence.

Other clients destroy evidence or illegally scrub electronic information in transit with key-stroke programs such as the "evidence eliminator" which boasts that not even the FBI could recover scrubbed data.

One focus on whether evidence of bad conduct that may be relevant, or critical, to a custody dispute, is the source of the information.  ESI on a "family" computer has no expectation of privacy and is thus admissible in the family court.

Finally, the presentation surveyed recent litigation and case law arising from evidentiary disputes in family courts.  Some of the cases involved sexting, other cases involved cyber-bullying.

In all, it was a successful presentation made to an interested group of attorneys looking to put it all together in the social media context.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: Avvo,divorce,e-discovery,electronically stored information,ESI,ICLE,privacy,social media

Dr. Dre Is In the House; The Michigan Supreme Courthouse

Honigman Miller's top-notch First Amendment lawyer, Herschel Fink, seems to get all the great cases; at least in my humble opinion.  Today, Fink argued on behalf of Rapper Dr. Dre before the Michigan Supreme Court while Dre's high-powered Los Angeles legal counsel was listening to Mr. Fink from the Court's well-appointed counsel's table.

This case has been up and down the court system here in Michigan for ten-years.

The dispute goes back to Dre's last Detroit concert in July 2000 at the Joe Louis Arena.  Dennis Archer was the Mayor, but was out of town.  Dre was on his infamous "Up in Smoke" tour along with Eminem and Snoop Dog.  The boys had cooked up a racy video deemed inappropriate by the Detroit Police for the youngsters expected to attend the show.

Police commander (and later City Council President) Gary Brown and other police officials met with Dre's concert promoters backstage prior to the show and advised that power to the show would be cut if the explicit video was shown.  After some haggling, and perhaps some arm twisting, the promoters talked the performers to go on with the show, sans intro. The exchanges were openly recorded by a tour film crew.

When the tour moved North the next day to the Palace of Auburn Hills, word had leaked to authorities in that community that the Detroit Police successfully canned the objectionable video intro by threatening to cut power to the event.  The tour went to federal court, that day, and obtained an injunction from U.S. District Court Judge Nancy Edmunds to prevent any interference with the show on behalf of the police.  The show at the Palace featured the explicit video introduction.

The tour left Michigan, and the promoters sued Detroit and settled for their attorney fees.  Former Mayor Archer issued a public statement that conceded the possibility of an unconstitutional "prior restraint" on behalf of the Detroit Police officers, and recognized the federal court injunction that was subsequently issued.

Six months later, Dre and his producers released a DVD of the tour with some bonus tracks which included a 10-minute segment titled, "Detroit Controversy".  This segment depicted some of the heated exchanges between Commander Brown, the DPD, City officials, and the tour promoters at the Joe.

The officers sued on eavesdropping and other tort theories and saw their case summarily tossed-out by the Wayne County Circuit Court.  The officers' first appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals resulted in an affirmance of the summary disposition, except on the eavesdropping claim.  The intermediate appellate court said dismissal of that claim was premature as discovery had not been completed.

The case was sent back to the Wayne Circuit Court to complete the discovery process.  The additional evidence simply showed the Detroit government officials and police conducting the meeting in "public" areas backstage; doors open and hangers-on gawking.

Even after this so-called "additional evidence" was adduced and discovery finally closed, the Wayne Circuit Court again granted summary disposition in favor of Dr. Dre and the concert promoters; the case again was appealed by the officers to the Court of Appeals.

In a 2-1 decision, the Court of Appeals voted to again remand the eavesdropping claim back to the trial court.  Before the case could go back to the trial court for the second remand, however, the Michigan Supreme Court granted the promoters' application for leave to appeal.  Briefs were filed, and oral argument was conducted today.

The issue to be decided by the High Court is whether law enforcement officials have an expectation of privacy in carrying out their public duties.  Plaintiffs, the government officials and police officer, claim there was an agreement the meeting would be private and that the cameras were "hidden".  Also in-play in this case is the role of the ubiquitous video recorder and the instantaneous world-wide transmission potential of it's digitized content.

For those interested in drilling further into this case, Attorney Fink's appellate brief, complete with several instructive backstage photos, is reproduced here; the police officers' brief is attached here.  Warning:  although well-written, these briefs are not light reading.

We cannot help but wonder what the former Detroit Police commander and other public officials want out of this case.  Money damages from a deep-pocket gangsta rapper?  Exposure from such a high-profile case?

It sure seems to us from the photos in the Appellants' brief, and from the facts set forth by the Court of Appeals, that the core-incident in this case involved a very public meeting about the government's exercise of a "prior restraint".

We will follow this case as it grinds to a conclusion over a decade in the making.  Stay tuned.

Read more »

Posted in: Dennis Archer,Dr. Dre,Eminem,First Amendment,Herschel Fink,lawyer,Michigan Court of Appeals,Michigan Supreme Court,prior restraint,privacy,Snoop Dog,Wayne County Circuit Court

Prescription Privacy Rights

When we fill a prescription, most of us believe that action, along with our identity, is private. In fact, the name and dosage of the drug, the prescribing physician, and your own name and social security number become a commodity bought and sold in the medical data-mining industry.

A little-known provision buried in February's federal stimulus legislation, however, now requires pharmacy benefit managers, bankers, and medical claim processors to comply with Federal privacy and security regs. The new law is being fitted with federal regulations designed to give private rights some teeth; and violations a real bite.

Both Walgreens and CVS have been defending recent litigation claiming violations of patients' rights to privacy relative to their medical prescriptions. These corporate defendants have asserted that the information sold either has been encrypted or "de-identified"; a process where the patient's name is removed from the rest of the data.

In addition, the data-mining industry asserts that de-identified health data is critical for medical as well as for quality assurance measures such as tracking the side effects of drugs. The problem is manifest when computer-savy lawbreakers "re-identify" the data by cross-referencing several databases to link one's identity to one's roster of prescriptions. Once repackaged in this manner, the data becomes a valuable commodity in the medical data industry.

Another portion of the stimulus package of note to this post is the $20 billion incentive for physicians to digitize their records over the next five-years. Companies such as Google, Microsoft and WebMD all stand to gain from the information processing aspects of this digital push. Both WebMD and Microsoft acknowledge that the new Federal privacy rules apply to their companies. Google asserts, on the other hand, that its users are subject only to their privacy policy which is agreed to as a precondition to logging on.

Thus, the stage is set for a clash between the proponents of national medical database digitization and our basic right to privacy. The recent high-profile case of Farah Fawcett brought attention to the problem posed by data thieves. Ms Fawcett's cancer treatment records were illegally obtained and sold to the media.
While the digitization and transfer of data are now crucial to the health industry, strict privacy safeguards are needed. The question is, will they be enforced?

Read more »

Posted in: CVS,health care,prescription,privacy,stimulus legislation,Walgreens

Divorce and Facebook: Privacy Be Gone

Is there any privacy among partners in a marriage; among parties to a divorce proceeding? In this web 2.0 era, some people are their own worst enemy.

Photos or statements posted on the web lose all aspects of privacy. Deleting a post does not remove it from cyberspace. The Internet is rich terrain for discovery-seeking divorce lawyers.

In a divorce, it is advisable to maintain privacy and restrict confidences to one's professional counselors. Why then, are so many people drawn to plastering their every move -including their horrible gaffs- on the Internet via the web's easily accesible variety of social networking platforms?

A recent Time magazine article analyzes this trend in the divorce context:
http://tinyurl.com/m9n6lh
The article includes a link to five "Facebook Don'ts":
http://tinyurl.com/nml7vq

No doubt, lawyers can and do take advantage of web postings in custody battles and in the property division contest. If you need to have a web posting preserved, or have the source of a post tracked, contact our firm to assess your options.

Read more »

Posted in: divorce,Facebook,privacy,Web 2.0

Identity Theft Concerns in Family Court Orders

The Michigan House of Representatives introduced a trio of bills which will require judgments of divorce, orders of filiation (between non-married parents) and child support orders, to omit parents' personal information.

Note: a parent's name and address are deemed outside the scope of the phrase "personal identifying information", as that term would be used in the legislation. Personal information is defined as: telephone number, driver license or state personal identification card number, Social Security number, place of employment, employee identification number, employer or taxpayer identification number, government passport number, health insurance identification number, mother's maiden name, demand deposit account number, savings account number, financial transaction device account number or the person's account password, stock or other security certificate or account number credit card number, vital record, or medical records or information.

These bills continue the Legislature's efforts to combat identity theft. Several years ago, social security numbers (once routinely included in a variety of support-related orders and divorce decrees) were precluded from being submitted to family court, even where a form or order contained a field for the information. Now, only the last four-digits are used, as it is a misdemeanor to include a person's social security number on a public document. The bills also come on the heals of the passage of the Identity Theft Protection Act in 2004.

The new privacy legislation, introduced to the House in April, was recently considered by the House Judiciary Committee at a meeting on Wednesday, June 3, 2009.

Family law attorneys are becoming increasingly sophisticated and creative in drafting family court orders in such a fashion that avoids telling the public too much about their clients. If you have additional questions on this or other family law topics that may affect your case, feel free to give us a call to discuss your situation.

Read more »

Posted in: child support information,identity theft,privacy