SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that law enforcement can legally scan or swipe a seized credit card—in fact, it is not a Fourth Amendment search at all, so it doesn’t require a warrant.
In the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals’ 15-page opinion, swiping a card does not constitute a physical search, as the magnetic stripe simply contains the same information obviously visible on the front of the card. Plus, the defendant, Eric-Arnaud Benjamin Briere De L'Isle, couldn’t have had a reasonable privacy interest in the card, the court concluded, because he would have tried to use it when he tried to buy something, thereby giving up privacy interests to a third party (the issuing bank).
According to court records in United States v. De L’Isle, the case began in June 2014 when Eric-Arnaud Benjamin Briere De L'Isle was driving westbound on I-80 and was pulled over by a Seward County, Nebraska, sheriff’s deputy.
The deputy, Sgt. Michael Vance, pulled over De L’Isle (also known as “Briere”) for following too close to a tractor-trailer. As Sgt. Vance approached the car, he noticed the distinct “odor of burnt marijuana” coming from within the car, and he observed three air fresheners hanging from the rear-view mirror. After questioning De L’Isle, Sgt. Vance suspected that the driver might have drugs, so he deployed his drug-sniffing dog.
While no drugs were located, the law enforcement agent found and seized:
…51 credit, gift, and debit cards in a duffel bag located in the vehicle’s trunk. Ten of the cards were American Express credit cards, all bearing Briere’s name, with different account numbers embossed on the fronts of the cards. A number of the debit and gift cards also had account numbers embossed on them, but none bore Briere’s name. Some of the cards were in wrapping utilized by the issuing company to display the cards in retail stores.
Later, upon further investigation by the Secret Service and the Department of Homeland Security, “The agents discovered the magnetic strips on the back of the 10 American Express credit cards in Briere’s name contained no account holder identification or account information which exists on legitimate American Express cards when they are issued.”
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday June 15 2016, @09:20PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Wednesday June 15 2016, @09:37PM
Actually no, it sounds like they didn't bust him on credit card fraud: they arrested him for having a device that he could use to make things with which he could perpetrate fraud.
De L'Isle was indicted and eventually convicted of one count of possession of counterfeit devices.
Two degrees of criminality bacon
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Touché) by Dunbal on Thursday June 16 2016, @12:12AM
a device that he could use to make things with which he could perpetrate fraud.
What, like a pen?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2016, @07:59AM
The swat team is on its way!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @09:39PM
You can argue about whether the search was reasonable or not. However, if we accept it was reasonable (and your comment did not dispute that) then it is perfectly reasonable that anything suspicious will be investigated (would you want that a cop on traffic duty not to intervene in an armed robbery)? And if they find a bag with 51 credit and gift cards... among them 10 amex cards with the same name... I would certainly find that suspicious, and so did they. So they busted him for CC fraud. And yes, I'm fussy about anybody accessing my phone, too. But I will not be fussy if they find 20 phones on someone and they will want to get access to them. It is (or should be) always the question of whether there is *reasonable* suspicion. This particular case is nowhere near even gray.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday June 15 2016, @09:51PM
However, if we accept it was reasonable (and your comment did not dispute that)...
You're right. My thoughts got a little ahead of me. What triggered my remark was the bit in the summary that said that by using the CC he was giving up his expectation of privacy to the bank. Now admittedly I did not read the article and I am going off knee-jerk here, but I don't understand how his credit card credentials are suddenly fair game in a circumstance like that just because he used his card. He does not, by virtue of using his card, blast his purchases to the world for all to hear about. What is a warrant even needed for if they can do that?
I'd also like to say that you are correct that I did not take into consideration just how they wandered across his stuff. I partly attribute that to frustration over this need the police departments think they have to scan my phone if I'm pulled over. I feel very strongly that they need to tighten up reasonable search and seizure to keep it context sensitive. If you smell drugs, look for drugs. If you find evidence on my phone that I illegally parked in a handicapped space, tough nuts.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by jcross on Wednesday June 15 2016, @11:01PM
I fail to see how scanning the mag stripe would tell them anything about his purchase history. In fact even the bank doesn't know *what* you bought, just who you bought it from and how much you spent. It's a number giving access to your bank account and that's about it, no different from looking at the routing number on one of your checks. As long as the police aren't using it to make unauthorized charges, it doesn't seem like much of a privacy violation to me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2016, @12:53AM
The fact that they're even messing with the cards at all when they were there for an entirely different purpose is a privacy issue. These fishing expeditions need to end.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday June 15 2016, @09:54PM
Quite. So let's go back over how the cards were discovered.
First, the car needs to get pulled over. Following a truck too closely? Maybe. Since when have cops ever pulled anybody over for tailgating?
Second, the smell of marijuana. This allows the cop to deploy a drug dog. Note that when it comes to smells, it's rather hard to prove after the fact what smelled which way.
Third, the drug dog alerted. This allows the cop to conduct a full search. Note that when it comes to smells, it's rather hard to prove after the fact what smelled which way.
Finally, no narcotics found. Instead, conveniently, evidence of possible credit card fraud found.
Now, I did say that it's rather hard to prove after the fact what smelled which way, but this is smelling to me like parallel construction.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by fnj on Thursday June 16 2016, @10:26AM
It's a moving violation and a reckless act. I would goddam well HOPE they would pinch him.
I agree this is a gratuitous overstep. The way to fix this is to GODDAM LEGALIZE IT.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Thursday June 16 2016, @01:00PM
You do realize that as soon as marijuana is legalised these cops are going to start smelling cocaine or heroin when they pull over someone they want to search.
No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @10:00PM
I'm fussy about anybody accessing my phone, too. But I will not be fussy if they find 20 phones on someone and they will want to get access to them. It is (or should be) always the question of whether there is *reasonable* suspicion. This particular case is nowhere near even gray.
First they came for the phone collectors, but I didn't care because I only owned one phone. Then I bought another phone, and another, and another. I didn't realize I had become a phone collector until I was accused of terrorism for possessing one too many devices that could reasonably be used to detonate a bomb. They show no mercy to phone collectors. I had crossed that line and there was nowhere left for me except prison. All because they found me with a bag full of phones.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday June 15 2016, @10:22PM
But I will not be fussy if they find 20 phones on someone and they will want to get access to them
It's not even remotely illegal to possess 20 phones or a bunch of credit cards. It's none of their business, and I'm tired of this "reasonable" nonsense being used to increase the government's power. There's nothing reasonable about government thugs harassing someone merely because there's a possibility that they could be doing something bad.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @10:56PM
A person who possesses 20 phones is a clear outlier, statistically speaking. You should be pleased to see cops using math to gauge probable cause.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Dunbal on Thursday June 16 2016, @12:16AM
So what makes an outlier then? 10 phones? 15 phones? 5 phones? Which number, exactly, is the "allowed" or "normal" quantity of phones?
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Thursday June 16 2016, @03:13AM
So what makes an outlier then? 10 phones? 15 phones? 5 phones? Which number, exactly, is the "allowed" or "normal" quantity of phones?
Don't know. Depends on the mean and standard deviation of the number of phones per subscriber? I'm sure several TLAs know those statistics.
"Outlier" is just someone with significantly more or less phones than average. Whether being an outlier is suspicious depends on paranoa.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2016, @09:00AM
Why is owning "too many phones" reasonable cause for a full search and a criminal investigation?
Is owning too many socks reasonable cause? What about pens? Or pieces of paper? Or Snickers bars? Or...
Do you see where this is going? Or are you too dense and drowning in LEO brand Kool-aid?
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Thursday June 16 2016, @11:29AM
Why is owning "too many phones" reasonable cause for a full search and a criminal investigation?
Did you miss this bit?
Whether being an outlier is suspicious depends on paranoia.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2016, @11:06AM
You are an outlier simply by virtue of posting here. I hope you are ready, doggy.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Thursday June 16 2016, @11:32AM
You are an outlier simply by virtue of posting here. I hope you are ready, doggy.
And by not having a facebook account... oh shit!
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2016, @01:38PM
If you are walking around with 5 phones on you my curiosity would be piqued.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday June 16 2016, @12:51AM
The government shouldn't be able to harass outliers, either. The mere possibility that someone could commit a crime with something should never be reason to search someone.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Thursday June 16 2016, @02:31AM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2016, @02:36PM
The more they search me for something 'bad', the likelier I become to actually do something actually bad.