AUSTIN, Texas – Civil liberties groups and privacy advocates are urging state legislators to require law-enforcement officials to seek judicial approval before accessing an individual's location tracking information, such as GPS data collected by cell-phone companies.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that it's unconstitutional to place tracking devices on someone's vehicle without first obtaining a warrant, but lower courts are divided on whether it's okay to simply grab the GPS data routinely transmitted by smart phones.
Matt Simpson, a policy strategist with ACLU of Texas, says it shouldn't matter how location information is gathered.
"These are the kinds of searches that, if done in person, would require a judge to sign off on it. But, for some reason, we haven't yet regulated in Texas how that information is used when it's collected, basically, electronically."
Simpson says location tracking has become an easy way for many law enforcement officials to conduct fishing expeditions that rarely result in prosecutions. He adds that reams of personal information – from where people shop, work and spend their free time – are often shared by multiple agencies.
Besides the privacy concerns, Simpson is worried that people could be profiled, or targeted for all the wrong reasons.
"People could be investigated for their religion. People could be investigated for First Amendment protected activity like free speech and free association. So, there are some real civil liberties issues in terms of who would be investigated if we don't have a warrant process where a judge steps in."
The ACLU is among several groups that will be meeting with lawmakers next week, seeking sponsors for legislation that would make tracking warrants mandatory statewide, and requires law enforcement agencies to publicly report how frequently they rely on cell-phone company data. Exceptions would be made for emergency situations, such as when officials are trying to locate a missing child.
get more stories like this via email
New Mexico demonstrators will join nationwide protests today to oppose policies of the Trump administration.
The "Good Trouble Lives On" nonviolent day of action continues a series of demonstrations across the country. Marches and candlelight vigils will honor Democratic Congressman John Lewis on the fifth anniversary of the civil rights icon's death. Lewis often advocated for getting into "good trouble" to oppose injustice.
Caroline Yezer, organizer for the activist group Indivisible Taos, one of the groups marching Thursday, said the protests will draw attention to President Donald Trump's reshaping of the federal government.
"If we can make it more visible how many people are outraged by the current policies of the Trump administration, the more chance we have of emboldening judges and politicians and others to take legal action," Yezer contended.
Yezer noted Taos demonstrators will line the streets at the corner of Civic Plaza Drive and Paseo Del Pueblo Norte starting at noon. Similar events are scheduled in Santa Fe, Albuquerque, Las Cruces and other New Mexico cities.
Since taking office, Trump has floated the idea of a federal crackdown on U.S. protesters. Last month, he deployed 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 U.S. Marines to Los Angeles during protests over the mass arrest of immigrants by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. Yezer cautioned the federal response should encourage people to be careful when demonstrating but she admires those in Taos who protest every day.
"I think that nothing worth fighting for is easy and I think we all know that this is a long fight," Yezer asserted. "Even though we're pacing ourselves, I have to say I'm really blown away by the people who are showing up with a sign every day."
Lewis, who died in 2020, was severely beaten by Alabama state troopers in 1963 when he led a group of voting rights protesters across a bridge in Selma, Alabama. The incident increased pressure on Congress to pass the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
get more stories like this via email
A case with national implications on the power of the U.S. president to use state National Guard troops to quell protests now rests with a panel of three district court judges after a hearing on Tuesday ended without a decision.
Gov. Gavin Newsom wants the court to force President Donald Trump to relinquish control of the California National Guard, which was deployed over Newsom's objections to Los Angeles following unrest over immigration raids.
Brett Shumate, assistant attorney general for the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, said the court has no power to review the President's decision.
"The President has the discretion to decide what level of forces are necessary to counter the threat, necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion or execute those laws," Shumate argued. "In the President's judgment, 2,000 National Guard are necessary to execute the laws in California and the record bears that out."
The governor and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass have countered local law enforcement had the situation under control. They contend the Guard's presence only inflamed tensions and raised the risk of violence. Schumate asserted the troops are essential to enforce immigration laws.
Samuel Harbourt, the attorney representing Gov. Newsom and the State of California, told the court the law requires the president to go through the governor, and denied the protests constituted an "invasion" or "rebellion."
"It would defy our constitutional traditions of preserving state sovereignty, of providing judicial review for the legality of executive action, of safeguarding our cherished rights to political protest," Harbourt outlined.
Harbourt noted the deployment in Los Angeles draws the California National Guard away from critical work at the state level, including wildfire prevention and drug interdiction.
get more stories like this via email
UPDATE: A statement about the arrest from the University of Cincinnati has been added. (8:10 a.m. MDT, Apr. 3, 2025)
A recent arrest on the University of Cincinnati campus is sparking outrage among civil rights advocates, raising new concerns about student speech, academic freedom and the treatment of Muslim and pro-Palestinian voices across the country.
A University of Cincinnati student was arrested this week - allegedly for waving a Palestinian flag. Videos posted online show five police officers tackling the student as he repeatedly asked if he was under arrest.
Khalid Turaani, CAIR-Ohio executive director, called the incident an attack on civil liberties.
"We unequivocally condemn the arrest of student activists and the alleged attack on freedom of speech and academic freedom. For police officers to attack a student for raising a Palestinian flag is beyond the pale as Americans," he said.
The University of Cincinnati released a statement on the incident:
"UC Police arrested a student who was protesting against a free speech demonstration occurring on campus that involved non-university affiliated preachers. Police officers warned the student several times not to impede the movement of the demonstrators. The student became involved in an altercation with the demonstrators and disregarded police officers' directions. Student was subsequently arrested for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest."
The Council on American-Islamic Relations said the arrest fits a troubling national pattern. Over the past month, students at institutions such as Columbia, Georgetown and Tufts have been detained. Some have been transferred to detention centers in Louisiana or had their visas revoked.
Turaani said Americans around the country should be cautious.
"It's creating an atmosphere that is reminiscent of the McCarthyist era where people are going to be assaulted or jailed or targeted because of things that they say or because of the belief that they have," he continued.
Turaani warned the recent wave of arrests could especially impact international and Muslim students, who may feel silenced for speaking out, and speaks directly to them.
"You are in the forefront of this civil rights movement. Everybody went through that. It seems this is our turn, to defend the civil rights of the rest of America for freedom of expression, for academic freedom, for human rights," he said.
get more stories like this via email
Contact
