DISCLAIMER: This article contains general legal information. It is not legal advice. All legal information in this article is true as of the time of writing. However, the law may change over time. To obtain legal advice about a specific legal issue that may impact your personal situation, speak to a licensed attorney. If we mention specific groups or individuals, we don’t do so to mock, shame, or disavow them. We sympathize with all political prisoners who share our worldview.
This article is part of a series that the American Futurist is releasing on legal topics that impact revolutionaries. A big problem revolutionaries face is getting into legal trouble because they don’t know the law. This project aims to alleviate this problem.
ZOG is constantly looking to collect as much information as they can on us. Therefore, it is essential to understand ZOG’s search powers. To operate more efficiently, you should know when pigs need and don’t need a warrant to obtain certain information from you. This article will discuss these points.
I. General Principles of Search Law: Warrants v. Subpoenas
The Fourth Amendment protects “against unreasonable searches and seizures” by the pigs.1 Fourth Amendment protections apply when an individual has a subjective expectation of privacy that society recognizes as reasonable.2 In these instances, pigs need a warrant supported by probable cause to conduct the search.3 The Supreme Court has defined probable cause to search as “a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.”4 The warrant must describe with sufficient particularity, “the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.” 5 Warrants also need to be approved by a “neutral and detached magistrate” or judge before pigs can conduct the search.6
While warrants are one search tool pigs can use, the other is subpoenas, which can be used to obtain information that is not Fourth Amendment protected. Subpoenas can be based on, “tips, rumors, hearsay, speculation, or any other source of information,”7 and require no judicial approval before being issued. Therefore, if pigs want to obtain information that is Fourth Amendment protected, they need a warrant, which is a higher standard for them to legally meet.
There are exceptions to the Fourth Amendment, meaning pigs can search you and collect information from you without a warrant in the following situations:8
a. Search SituationsEXCEPTIONS TO 4A (PIGS CAN SEARCH WITHOUT A WARRANT):
• Consent Searches: This occurs when someone voluntarily gives pigs permission to search their person or place. Consent is legally considered voluntary, if under the totality of the circumstances, it is free from explicit or implicit police coercion and the product of free will.9
◦ You are allowed to deny the pigs consent to search under the 5th amendment right against self-incrimination.10 Once this right is invoked, prosecution cannot draw an adverse legal inference from it.11
• Search incident to arrest: When pig arrests someone, they can search the area within the suspect’s “immediate control” for weapons and contraband.12
• Border Searches: Pigs can conduct searches at U.S. borders without a warrant or probable cause.13 Despite not being at a physical border, airports are considered “functional equivalents” of the border, meaning the border search exception applies at airports.14
• Plain View: This occurs when pigs are legitimately on the premises, discover contraband or evidence of a crime in plain view, and it’s immediately apparent that the item is contraband or evidence of a crime.15 The plain view exception also applies when pigs observe evidence using other senses, such as touch, smell, and hearing.
• Exigent Circumstances: This applies when a search or seizure is necessary to prevent physical harm to pigs or persons, destruction of evidence, escape of the suspect, or the improper frustration of law enforcement efforts.16
• Administrative Search: When a search’s purpose is to ensure the safety or efficiency of a regulated activity, the administrative search exception applies.17 Examples are TSA airport searches18 and searches of gun dealers.19
• Automobile exception: If pigs have probable cause to believe a vehicle has contraband or evidence of a crime, they can search it without a warrant.20 This is because vehicles are mobile and likely won’t be available for search when the pig returns with a warrant.
• Stop & Frisk: Pigs can stop someone without probable cause to arrest if they have articulable and reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. Pigs can frisk someone for weapons without probable cause to search if they reasonably believe the person may be armed and dangerous.21
• Third Party Doctrine: Individuals do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy to any information they provide to a third party, such as financial institutions, phone companies, or social media companies. Thus, there is no Fourth Amendment protection to any of this information and the pigs can acquire it without a warrant or probable cause.22
b. Items to be SearchedTo understand when pigs need a warrant to obtain certain information, two important principles of search law to understand are third party doctrine and content versus non-content information. Although discussed above, it is worth repeating that according to third party doctrine, there is no Fourth Amendment protection to ANY information you give to a third party, meaning pigs can get it without a warrant.23 This includes any information you give to financial institutions, phone companies, or social media companies.
The other important principle is how the law treats content versus non-content information. Generally, content is Fourth Amendment protected and pigs need a warrant to obtain it. Examples of content include the message in an email or a mailed physical letter or the words of a phone conversation. However, non-content information, or “metadata,” is generally not Fourth Amendment protected and can be obtained with a subpoena rather than a warrant. Examples of metadata include who registered an online account, when it was registered, when it was used, to whom and from whom communications were sent, the length or duration of communications that were sent and received, what addresses were used to sign into the account at various times, and the location of devices used.
These two principles are likely to shape search law as technology evolves in the future. Here is a list of various types of information that caselaw has determined that pigs need and don’t need a warrant to collect:
Pigs NEED A WARRANT to collect:
• Video surveillance of a private place with a reasonable expectation of privacy such as your home, a bathroom, or a locker room.24
• Audio Surveillance if it occurs in a private place with a reasonable expectation of privacy, like an interrogation room.25
• The Content of phone conversations
◦ Under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, Feds need to obtain a wiretap order to intercept phone conversations.26 Nicknamed “super warrants,” Title III orders need to be judicially approved and supported by probable cause.
• The Content of Emails27
◦ If a warrant is served on an email account, only the ISP needs to be notified, not the email account user.28
• The Content of Text Messages29
• The Content of Domestically Mailed Letters and Packages30
• Encrypted or scrambled radio communications31
• Historical cell site location information (CSLI)32
◦ Cell phones constantly scan their environment to find the best signal from the nearest cell site. Each time a phone connects to a cell site, a time-stamped record is generated, called CSLI.
◦ Because nearly everyone always keeps their phones near them and wireless carriers typically store data for 5 years, CSLI can track someone’s every location for every second of every day for five years.
• Data stored on a computer33 or cell phone34
◦ When you hear about pigs stealing people’s devices, they do this to conduct a forensic search, which is when pigs use forensic software to copy a computer’s hard drive and analyze it in its entirety.35 Forensic searches are capable of unlocking password-protected files, retrieving images viewed on websites, and restoring deleted files.36 A forensic search is like reading a diary line by line looking for mention of criminal activity, plus looking at everything the writer may have erased.37 For example, a forensic search of an iPhone 6 yielded an 896-page report that included personal contact lists, emails, messenger conversations, photographs, videos, calendar, web browsing history, and call logs, along with a history of the phone’s physical location down to precise GPS coordinates.38
◦ The ways to circumvent forensic searches are to use TOR browser for sensitive internet searches, use the TAILS operating system on your computer, or encrypt your computer.
Pigs DO NOT NEED A WARRANT to collect:
• Video surveillance of open areas or the workplace39
• Audio Surveillance of speech that you tell other people.40
• Numbers dialed into a telephone line41
• IP addresses42
• Internet search history43
• Email addresses (to/from) that an email account communicates with44
• Cell phone records of who a cell phone number sends text messages to.45
• Unencrypted or unscrambled radio communications46
• Data stored on a public computer (library, workplace computer, etc.)47
• Social Media Posts48
• GPS metadata on photos49
• Bitcoin transactions because all Bitcoin transactions are recorded on a publicly available Bitcoin blockchain50
• Business records, such as customer lists and bank account records. These can be obtained with a subpoena.
• Sender and recipient addresses on the outside of domestically mailed packages and letters51
◦ The U.S. Postal Service takes pictures of the face of all mailed letters and packages to give to police. These are called “mail covers.”52
• The Contents of internationally mailed letters and packages
◦ This is because these are subject to the border search exception.53
• The Contents of letters and phone conversations with someone in jail54
◦ Letters and recorded jailhouse phone calls with inmates are often used by police to investigate their associates outside of jail.55
c. TakeawaysBecause having a bank account, internet, and phone service are pretty much essential today, it is virtually impossible to starve the pigs of all information you provide to these third parties. However, there are actions that can be taken to lower suspicion and minimize identifying information you disclose:
• When registering for social media accounts, consider using burner phone numbers and privacy centered email services. Don’t include your name or other identifying information in the email address you use to register for the social media account.
• Use privacy coins like Monero for dissident transactions.
• To minimize information disclosure while using the internet:
◦ Use a VPN paid for in privacy coins like Monero to mask your IP address. If you pay for a VPN with credit card, it defeats the whole purpose of privacy because pigs can subpoena the VPN company for your payment information, compromising your identity.
◦ Use TOR for web browsing so pigs can’t see your search history even if they have a warrant.
◦ Consider using the TAILS operating system, which runs on your computer’s RAM, or short-term memory. If pigs conduct a forensic search on your computer, they can’t see anything you did while you were using TAILS.
• When communicating online, use end to end encryption. Unless you are directly communicating with a pig, they can’t access encrypted communications, even with a warrant.
• Be careful with who you call on the phone or what transactions you make with your bank account. Pigs can see that information without a warrant.
• If you are going to the airport, pigs can conduct forensic searches on your phone, computer, and other devices. If you are doxed as a member of a public group or FBI is harassing you for your political activities, they will likely conduct a forensic search of your device. If you don’t want your devices searched, consider leaving it at home or bringing “burner” devices for basic communications functions that don’t have sensitive information saved on them.Overall, be conscious of these search powers and what information pigs can get from you. For situations where pigs can see something without a warrant, act as if they are seeing it and only provide “normie” information. If you are doing dissident activities, take the precautions discussed above to protect yourself.
Hail Victory!
American Futurist Staff
FOOTNOTES:
1 USCS Const. Amend. 4.
2 See Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334, 338 (2000).
3 See Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373, 382 (2014) (quoting Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 653 (1995)).
4 See Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983)
5 USCS Const. Amend. 4.
6 See Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-14
7 See 2 Search and Seizure § 49.06 (2024)
8 See Riley, 573 U.S. at 382; Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 460 (2011).
9 See United States v. Rivera, No. 2014-31, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151950, at *1 (D.V.I. Oct. 23, 2014)
10 See United States v. Berry, 670 F.2d 583, 596 (5th Cir. 1982)
11 See United States v. Thame, 846 F.2d 200, 207 (3d Cir. 1988)
12 See Chimel v. Cal., 395 U.S. 752, 762-763
13 See United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 616-18 (1977).
14 See United States v. Irving, 452 F.3d 110, 123 (2d Cir. 2006).
15 See Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra; Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987).
16 See United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir. 1984)
17 See Rivera, No. 2014-31, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151950, at *7
18 See Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 731 (2011)
19 See United States v. Biswell, 406 U.S. 311, (1972)
20 See Carrol v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925)
21 See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968)
22 See United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 171 (1974)
23 See Id.
24 See Doe v. Dearborn Pub. Schs, No. 06-CV-12369-DT, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25514 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 31, 2008)
25 See State v. Munn, 56 S.W.3d 486 (Tenn. 2001)
26 See 18 U.S.C. § 2511
27 See United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir. 2010)
28 See United States v. Henshaw, No. 15-00339-01-CR-W-BP, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45429 (W.D. Mo. Feb. 23, 2017)
29 See United States v. Forrester, 512 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2008)
30 See Ex parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727, 733 (1878)
31 See 18 U.S.C. § 2510(16)(A); 2 Search and Seizure § 42.27 (2024)
32 See Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2218 (2018)
33 See United States v. Carey, 172 F.3d 1268 (10th Cir. 1999)
34 See United States v. Horton, No. 12-228, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104072 (E.D. Pa. July 25, 2013)
35 See United States v. Cotterman, 709 F.3d 952, 962-63
36 See Id. at 965
37 See Id. at 962-963
38 See United States v. Kolsuz, 890 F.3d 133, 145
39 See United States v. Biasucci, 786 F.2d 504 (2d Cir. 1986)
40 See Kee v. City of Rowlett, 247 F.3d 206 (5th Cir. 2001)
41 See Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979)
42 See Forrester, 512 F.3d at 500
43 See id.
44 See id.
45 See State v. Marcum, 2014 OK CR 1, 319 P.3d 681
46 See United States v. Rose, 669 F.2d 23 (1st Cir. 1982)
47 See Berry v. Yosemite Cmty. Coll. Dist., No. 1:18-cv-00172-LJO-SAB, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64732 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2018); United States v. Ziegler, 474 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 2007)
48 See United States v. Meregildo, 883 F. Supp. 2d 523 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)
49 See United States v. Post, 997 F. Supp. 2d 602 (S.D. Tex. 2014)
50 See United States v. Gratkowski, 964 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2020)
51 See United States v. Burnette, 375 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2004)
52 See https://archive.is/4LNR7
53 See Ramsey, 431 U.S. at 617
54 See Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974); Lanza v. New York, 370 U.S. 139 (1962)
55 See United States v. Griffith, 867 F.3d 1265 (D.C. Cir. 2017)