EFF: The Fourth Amendment Is Not Top Secret

EFF is requesting that the judge in its FOIA for the October 3, 2011 John Bates FISA Court opinion, Amy Berman Jackson, review the redactions currently in the document to ensure they are properly classified. (h/t Mike Scarcella) It argues the court should undertake such a review because disclosure of the things DOJ had previously claimed were Top Secret has now proven “the agency’s previous blanket withholding assertions were overbroad and wholly without merit.”

To support that case, they point to this passage originally withheld from production.

Upon even a cursory review of the Opinion, it is apparent, DOJ’s blanket exemption claims were far broader than the law allows. For example, this passage, according to the agency, was appropriately “classified at the TOP SECRET level” and withheld from the Opinion:

The Fourth Amendment provides:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Opinion at 67 (reciting Fourth Amendment); see also Bradley Decl., ¶ 5 (Opinion “withheld in full pursuant to FOIA Exemptions b(1) and b(3)”).

Now, I’m actually not sure about this argument. In recent years, after all, the Fourth Amendment has been almost entirely disappeared without a trace. I wouldn’t be surprised if the government had disappeared it as a conscious policy decision. So perhaps they really do maintain that the Fourth Amendment must now be hidden pursuant to the Executive Order governing classified information.

Technically, the government previously argued that revealing the existence and text of the Fourth Amendment would cause exceptionally grave harm to the United States — that’s what the Top Secret classification it withheld this material under means. [Update: Or, as Nigel puts it, that the opinion referenced the Fourth. Except that’s even more absurd because the FOIA was a response to Ron Wyden’s declassification of a statement that said the FISC had found in this opinion that the program violated the Fourth.]

We’ll see whether Judge Jackson agrees that was a reasonable claim.

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+10Email to someone

8 Responses to EFF: The Fourth Amendment Is Not Top Secret

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz @RachelBLevinson @benwizner Bad link. also, don't feed the Wizner!!
55mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @ageis @csoghoian's, you mean? Now we just have to get him to cough it up.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @gzornick That's right. They don't. A good way to make sure your opponent doesn't bring their starter. @AdamSchefter
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @csoghoian I don't make $600/hour. I went default HTTPS (with the help of @ageis, who can have my whiskey).
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @gzornick Is there any real guarantee the Jets will show up anyway? I mean, they're the Jets, right? @AdamSchefter
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @gzornick Oh. The Jets. Forgot about them. Was figuring the Bills would all be cleared because of past games. @AdamSchefter
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @AdamSchefter Why not move it to Toronto? How much snow do they have?
2hreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV CDC chief drops worst-case Ebola estimate http://t.co/4uPHzqaB3j via @YahooNews
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @ddayen Covering that might deflate the irrational exuberance. And there's nothing Merkans cling to like their irrational exuberance.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV @Ali_Gharib For ten years, they've been longing for it to be the next stop on the Neocon Highway to Hell. I hope they miss their turn.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
October 2013
S M T W T F S
« Sep   Nov »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031