Fixing another “we can, therefore we must” problem.
The
California Supreme Court just rejected
the
government’s attempt to require a youth probationer, as a condition
of release, to submit to random searches of his electronic devices
and social media accounts. The trial court had imposed the condition
because the judge believed teenagers “typically will brag” about
drug use on the Internet—even though there was no evidence that the
minor in this case, Ricardo P., had ever used any electronic devices
in connection with any drugs or illegal activity, let alone ever
previously bragged about drug use online.
EFF
and the ACLU filed an amicus
brief in
the case back in 2016, warning that the search condition imposed here
was highly invasive, unconstitutional, and in violation of the
California Supreme Court’s own standard for probation
conditions—which requires that search conditions be “reasonably
related to future criminality.” We also warned of the far-reaching
privacy implications of allowing courts to impose such broad
electronic search conditions. We’re pleased that the California
Supreme Court heeded our warnings and recognized the substantial
burden this “sweeping probation condition” imposed on Ricardo’s
privacy.
The
court recognized that the probation condition would give Ricardo’s
probation officers “full access, day or night, not only to his
social media accounts but also to the contents of his e-mails, text
messages, and search histories, all photographs and videos stored on
his devices, as well as any other data accessible using electronic
devices, which could include anything from banking information to
private health or financial information to dating profiles.” And
by allowing remote access to Ricardo’s online accounts, the
condition would potentially allow his probation officers to monitor
his communications in real time. According to the court:
“If we were to find this record sufficient to sustain the probation condition at issue, it is difficult to conceive of any case in which a comparable condition could not be imposed, especially given the constant and pervasive use of electronic devices and social media by juveniles today.”
The
court noted, for example, that if it were to hold—as the California
Attorney General argued—that any search condition facilitating
supervision of probationers was “reasonably related to future
criminality,” it might be obligated to uphold “a condition
mandating that probationers wear 24-hour body cameras or permit a
probation officer to accompany them at all times.”
This
is a critical ruling. The search condition imposed in this case was
not unique, but one that many juvenile probationers have been subject
to in California in recent years, under the same unsupported
reasoning that the trial judge offered here. The California Supreme
Court’s decision not only resolves a split in the lower courts
regarding the legality of such probation conditions, but it sends a
clear message: probation conditions that have “a very heavy burden
on privacy with a very limited justification” are not entitled to
deference.
We
applaud the California Supreme Court for recognizing the serious
privacy invasion imposed by the search condition issued in this case
and for striking down the condition as invalid.
Source:
EFF
A
PDF
The
Promise and Limitations of Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of
Law
For
my geeks.
No comments:
Post a Comment