It’s not a Fourth Amendment search if a cop swipes your credit card, court finds

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).

It’s not a Fourth Amendment search if a cop swipes your credit card, court finds

Following the earlier thread "State police swiping motorist debit, prepaid cards to seize money" -www.abovetopsecret.com... concerning police in Oklahama swiping cards, more.

Apparently, according to them this is not against the Fourth Amendment. Now this ruling may bring the go ahead for other areas to agree including in Oklahoma where this was being addressed as of late.

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit;

appellate jurisdiction over the following United States district courts:

Eastern District of Arkansas
Western District of Arkansas
Northern District of Iowa
Southern District of Iowa
District of Minnesota
Eastern District of Missouri
Western District of Missouri
District of Nebraska
District of North Dakota
District of South Dakota

Source-Wiki

If you live in one of these areas, find it concerning, you may want to address your Reps,etc.

a reply to: dreamingawake

That 15 page opinion isn't worth the paper it was written on. "....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." Wut?!?

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
a reply to: dreamingawake

That 15 page opinion isn't worth the paper it was written on. "....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." Wut?!?

Yup, same with the deal of them swiping cards in Oklahoma. Makes you wonder w# is wrong from the people hired to run this stuff. As long they sleep tight at night, are paid well and family isn't affected by this, it's alright to be paid by lobbyist, be fascist, etc.

a reply to: dreamingawake
Whoa! They claimed to be looking for drugs when they found his stash of cards. I don't see how the judge could allow that evidence. He didn't consent to the search and they didn't find drugs but decided, based on his demeanor that they would seize his gift, credit and debit cards. I agree with the judges that privacy isn't a concern here. It's the unlawful seizure of his cards that bothers me and should have bothered the judge.

Original post removed when I found out ALL the facts of the case.

ETA -
There is something missing from the article.


Ok - here we go.
**PDF** United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit United States of America v. Eric-Arnaud Benjamin Briere DE L'Isle

The guy was stopped for a valid traffic violation. When the Sgt. approached he smelled burnt marijuana. He had the suspect come back to his car and sit while the Sgt. wrote out a warning citation for the traffic violation. The Sgt. then ran his K-9 around the vehicle which "hit" on narcotic smell. At that point the car was "seized" and lawfully searched. During the search the suspect informed the Sgt. he could not search the trunk (once the dog hit the car was seized and could be searched in its entirety). When the Sgt. proceeded to search the trunk the suspect assaulted the officer and after a struggle was taken into custody.

in the trunk over 50 credit / debit / gift cards, all with different account numbers but all showing his name, were located. During the investigation of those cards it was discovered that the cards magnetic strips contained no info at all. It was noted legitimate cards would contain the info on the front of the card in the magnetic strips. The USSS assisted in the investigation.

The issue was the suspect attempted to suppress the cards as evidence citing a 4th amendment violation. The appeals court found the search was lawful. The appeals court also noted that his suppression motion came outside of the time frame - IE after his pre trial motion date expired he tried to suppress the card evidence. The appeals court reviewed his case anyways.

As a result, DE L'Isle was charged with possession of fifteen or more counterfeit and unauthorized access devices,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1029(a)(3) and (c)(1)(A)(i). He pled not guilty, and on July 31, 2014, the magistrate judge filed a progression order requiring that pretrial motions be filed on or before August 29, 2014. On October 23, 2014, De L'Isle filed a motion to suppress asking the district court to suppress any evidence discovered when law enforcement scanned the magnetic strips on the seized cards. He ar
gued that the search of the information inthe magnetic strips of the cards was done without a warrant or a warrant exception and
thus violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches. The district court noted that his motion was untimely. However, the court considered the merits of the motion and held that "based on the law," DE L'Isle's motion lacked merit."

2 Thus, the district court denied the motion to suppress without a hearing, ultimately holding that "reading the magnetic
strip on the back of a credit, debit, or gift card is not a 'search' for Fourth Amendment purposes

In other words the search complied with the 4th amendment as a search incident to an arrest. The checking of the cards to make sure the name in the strip matched the name on the card was a verification of pedigree information and the officers did not access any records of the cards. It would be like swiping a drivers license that confirms the information on the front is valid.

The officers contacted several credit card companies to confirm the accounts existed, which they did not.

a reply to: dreamingawake

I really don't understand how it is legal for a police officer to steal all your funds and require a person to go to court with all of their bank statements to prove that they are legitimate. I could understand if you were carrying a card not in your name, but then it would # that person over whomever that card was stolen from or borrowed from, and when they see charge on their debit card they didn't know was stolen in the first place and the charge went to OKPD or something like that, wouldn't that seem a bit strange and messed up?

Basically what they are saying is that your money is the states money unless proven otherwise. So never again is it allowed to just work for cash, let's say I install a sink and fix your dishwasher for 100 bucks, then put that 100 bucks into my account through my bank. There is no trace from where that money came from so that is automatically the states?

An example how this can easily take place and screw over 100's of people a day; last week I was driving home and there was a police roadblock stationed on a busy offramp connecting a busy street to a 2 lane highway. I don't exactly know what the police were pulling people aside for but from what I could tell, they were checking every single car's license tags on their plate to see if they were up to date. I went through and the officer just glanced at my front plate and waved me on, yet there were at least 5 cars pulled to the side for further questioning. I wasn't told that was what they were looking for but that was the only thing that made sense. I literally smh and told myself "what away to get $100 fines out of people for not having an up to date sticker, and why does a sticker expire every year...so on and so forth?" Why is this necessary at all? They already have cameras on nearly every intersection, there is no reason for street cops. More nuissance than help.

a reply to: dreamingawake

There is an officer in my neighborhood that always parks his car so it blocks the sidewalk/walkway, which in fact is worth a ticket in my city. If I have an RFID chip reader should it not be legal for me to get his card information while giving him a written warning about blocking the sidewalk and that his funds have all been transfered to a safe account until I see all his bank statements and income statements? How would that work out? Probably not in my favor, but hypocrisy is funny sometimes in order to send a message across.

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
a reply to: dreamingawake

That 15 page opinion isn't worth the paper it was written on. "....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." Wut?!?

As a matter of fact it is. The op article is not worth the digital space its taking up as they left out ALL RELEVANT information. See my post above and read the background portion of their ruling.

what a gross overstep.

If i choose to share information with a third party, that does not invalidate my privacy concerns with other third parties. For example, if i took naked pictures of one of the justices wife that she gave me, it doesn't mean she has negated any expectation of privacy of said naked pictures. If it does, then there are some other laws relating to "revenge porn" sites that will need to be struck down and removed.

Similarly, the information contained on the magnetic stripe gives access to process payment. It does not simply "contain the same information", as a swiped credit transaction carries a higher level of viability (and a lower processing fee). The transactors see them as different pieces of information. And they can only do that if the magnetic stripe contains some level of different information than what is imprinted on the card.

With EMV chip readers, it just goes one step further. The chip is actual physical validation of the card itself for the sake of purchasing, and is not the same information contained on the front of the card.

This is what happens when idiots in robes are asked to understand things more complex than a paddle ball.

a reply to: Xcathdra

ok, so in essence the cards (multiple, not the dudes debit card in his wallet with the rent and grocery money on it) were evidence of the crime itself, and not actually lawfully held items.

Still not fond of it. But at least its not flat out wrong, and likely is not precedent setting in any way that would affect anyone worthy of standing up for.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Correct...

How many people keep over 50 debit cards from various banks / gift cards / etc in a bag in the trunk of their car? How many of those people assault the police after telling them they cant search the trunk? While he was stopped for a traffic violation the smell, the dog hitting on the car, the search, the assault and the locating of the cards were 100% lawful and within the constitution.

Then it should be perfectly legal to utilize fraud protection, and mark any transactions done by a police officer as "fraudulent" so the bank can return the money back into your account.

I write software that integrates with various credit card readers. I most recently implemented an Ingenico card reader with EMV capability.

I know what is on the track data of credit cards, and one thing that does not exist on the track data is the CVV number on the back of the card, and that is by design. Also, the zip code of the card holder's address is not on the track data either. One or the other of these numbers needs to be used in order to process a transaction. You would need to "search" for this information to use it.

originally posted by: Sometimes
a reply to: dreamingawake

I really don't understand how it is legal for a police officer to steal all your funds and require a person to go to court with all of their bank statements to prove that they are legitimate.

I didn't see anything in the article about funds being taken.

They took the credit cards, but only when it was found that the magnetic strips on some of them contained no information, raising a huge red flag that they were not legitimate credit cards (legitimate ones have the ID information that is visible on the front of the card encoded in the strip). And the swiping of the magnetic strip was done in the first place because he had 10 American Express Cards with his name on it, plus 50 more cards in the trunk.

I don't think funds were taken by the police, they just read the magnetic strip info.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Original post removed when I found out ALL the facts of the case.

ETA -
There is something missing from the article.


Ok - here we go.
**PDF** United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit United States of America v. Eric-Arnaud Benjamin Briere DE L'Isle

The guy was stopped for a valid traffic violation. When the Sgt. approached he smelled burnt marijuana. He had the suspect come back to his car and sit while the Sgt. wrote out a warning citation for the traffic violation. The Sgt. then ran his K-9 around the vehicle which "hit" on narcotic smell. At that point the car was "seized" and lawfully searched. During the search the suspect informed the Sgt. he could not search the trunk (once the dog hit the car was seized and could be searched in its entirety). When the Sgt. proceeded to search the trunk the suspect assaulted the officer and after a struggle was taken into custody.

in the trunk over 50 credit / debit / gift cards, all with different account numbers but all showing his name, were located. During the investigation of those cards it was discovered that the cards magnetic strips contained no info at all. It was noted legitimate cards would contain the info on the front of the card in the magnetic strips. The USSS assisted in the investigation.

The issue was the suspect attempted to suppress the cards as evidence citing a 4th amendment violation. The appeals court found the search was lawful. The appeals court also noted that his suppression motion came outside of the time frame - IE after his pre trial motion date expired he tried to suppress the card evidence. The appeals court reviewed his case anyways.

As a result, DE L'Isle was charged with possession of fifteen or more counterfeit and unauthorized access devices,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1029(a)(3) and (c)(1)(A)(i). He pled not guilty, and on July 31, 2014, the magistrate judge filed a progression order requiring that pretrial motions be filed on or before August 29, 2014. On October 23, 2014, De L'Isle filed a motion to suppress asking the district court to suppress any evidence discovered when law enforcement scanned the magnetic strips on the seized cards. He ar
gued that the search of the information inthe magnetic strips of the cards was done without a warrant or a warrant exception and
thus violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches. The district court noted that his motion was untimely. However, the court considered the merits of the motion and held that "based on the law," DE L'Isle's motion lacked merit."

2 Thus, the district court denied the motion to suppress without a hearing, ultimately holding that "reading the magnetic
strip on the back of a credit, debit, or gift card is not a 'search' for Fourth Amendment purposes

In other words the search complied with the 4th amendment as a search incident to an arrest. The checking of the cards to make sure the name in the strip matched the name on the card was a verification of pedigree information and the officers did not access any records of the cards. It would be like swiping a drivers license that confirms the information on the front is valid.

The officers contacted several credit card companies to confirm the accounts existed, which they did not.

Didnt the supreme court ave a ruling last yearis about it being illegal to jump into another investigation other than the first infraction? In this case the resonable or probable first case was the violation for plugging the person over... then out of suspicion held the motorist longer than another supreme court ruling that a traffic violation should take no longer than 20 minutes as this officer then violated to transition into another side investigation.

Of course police have been doing the get to a call or make a stop and then brank off into resonable suspiction investigations instead of probable cause investigation which is legal... thinking you smell something isnt probable cause as that means in plain view smelling is reasonable suspicion... which is protected under unreasonible search and seizure violations under presidence rulings.

Its just the drug war business still in its death throwes against cannabis which is a moralist non separation of church and state set of laws to begin with. The drug war is constituationally and ethically illegal, so of course all the problems of gangs and violence, trafficking of people and other black market black money under the table out of sight out of mind business that has arisen out of it funds a lot of nefarious things...

Thanks moralists for creating a failed prohibition 2.0 on the brightside other countries have solved all this stupid rico legal for state and government officals to be doing no different than the rico criminals are doing business... so we know a pathway out that works, instead of fragging out feet over illegal moralist holier than thou business that doesnt prevent it doesnt decrease demand and only makes our streets into war zones and places the polices lives in way more danger... its why so many damned departments have been wanting hummers and rocket launchers and other nonsense playing totalitarian police state saying they own our bodies just because we we born behind so stupid lines in the dirt no one chose to be born behind... fascism is that mentality, and look what such control schemes have done.

Even the UN is suggesting that all countries abandon the old models of prohibition because they are fuel to all these issues and go with the ones that actually work... of course all the intrenched industry that bought into prohibitions are dragging their feet at the buffet taking every bit of gravy from the tray as possible as the line fill up behind them... the answer to keep that nonsense going? More prisons oh and make sure they are privite ones where the avg tune is 30k per inmate... you know avg benefit for the disabled is less than 7K? And each prisioner gets 4 times that amount per year. More of that rico on the legal side of the fence... some things just shouldnt be privatized.

Swipe my card isn't a crime? Fine. But taking my money is still theft. Some hacker needs to develop software that empties out police department accounts when an infected card is swiped. That will show those theaving bastards.

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

What you are suggesting is already considered a crime as incitement. I wouldnt run around giving people such not so bright ideas... as it is considered subversive.

Nothing illegal about saying how any system operates though as thats education, of course being a privately owned website as pretty much all websites are... there is no such thing as freedom of speech unless the owner(s) specifically say open season have at it.

Its always one of those "my house" things on the web want it your way... build a site. But what youre suggesting if acted upon can come back and leave this site legally vulnerable or responsible for being a platform to such suggestions.

It would be wise for you to nix suggesting such things.

a reply to: dreamingawake

What they do is check the balance of the account I have to find the article I read. But it was interesting apparently the drug dealers have wised up and stopped carrying large sums of cash. Instead they will go get prepaid cards with 500.00 on each. So to pay for drugs they get the cards. I'll bet eventually they will just do direct deposit lol.

a reply to: dragonridr

I suppose reverse follow the money was inevitable... with so much money launder and corruption on both sides of the law I dont see it as a bad thing... aisde from body cameras id hope there are squad car cameras. As ive had a couple girlfriends offered to blow their way out of a ticket that had nothing to do with a breathalyzer.