Tenth Circuit: 4th Amendment Doesn't Support Broad Search of Protesters' Devices
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a significant win for digital privacy and protest rights, overturning broad search warrants for a protester's device and a nonprofit's social media. This rare decision meticulously dismantled overbroad warrants and, notably, denied qualified immunity to officers involved, challenging established precedents in police power. Hacker News is celebrating this landmark ruling as a crucial step against unchecked state surveillance and for the protection of constitutional liberties.
The Lowdown
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has issued a landmark ruling in Armendariz v. City of Colorado Springs, overturning a lower court's dismissal of a challenge to sweeping warrants used to search a protester's digital devices and a nonprofit's social media. This decision marks a significant victory for privacy advocates and civil liberties, pushing back against overbroad police powers and challenging the controversial doctrine of qualified immunity.
- The case originated from a 2021 housing protest in Colorado Springs, leading to the arrest of Jacqueline Armendariz Unzueta for obstruction.
- Police subsequently obtained broad warrants for Armendariz's devices, seeking all photos, videos, emails, texts, and location data over two months, plus a time-unlimited search for 26 keywords like "bike" or "celebration," all for an alleged simple assault.
- A separate warrant targeted the Facebook page of the Chinook Center, the protest organizer, despite no accusations of crime against the organization.
- The district court initially dismissed a civil rights lawsuit by Armendariz and the Chinook Center, ruling the searches justified and granting officers qualified immunity.
- The ACLU of Colorado, with an amicus brief from EFF and other organizations, appealed the decision.
- In a 2-1 opinion, the Tenth Circuit reversed, finding the warrants overbroad and lacking particularity for both scope and duration.
- Crucially, the court ruled that officers violated "clearly established" law by furnishing deficient warrants, thereby denying them qualified immunity.
- While not explicitly addressing First Amendment concerns, the court acknowledged the context of police animus leading up to the protest.
This appellate court decision is particularly noteworthy for its detailed dissection of the warrants and its rare denial of qualified immunity, a doctrine often shielding officers from liability. It sets a precedent for scrutinizing the scope of digital searches related to protests and underscores the importance of protecting constitutional rights against governmental overreach, with the case now remanded for further proceedings.