Court conducts own review of video evidence

In an unusual appellate decision, a Massachusetts court evaluated how much weight can be given to inconclusive and sporadic surveillance video of a claimant. In Maher v Massachusetts General Hospital Long Term Disability Plan, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals weighed the video evidence in comparison to the number of days of surveillance to find for a disability claimant.

Video evidence showed the claimant employee driving, walking, jogging, lifting a child, and even flying a kite. Unusual for an appellate decision, the judges delved into the fact investigation, noting: “On 10 of the 19 days of surveillance, plaintiff Maher engaged in no activity.” The court found that “In over 90 minutes of surveillance, the most damning evidence the MGH Plan can identify is 15 minutes during which Maher carried a bucket or pot and 30 minutes during which Maher played with her 3 year old son in the park.”

The plan administrator viewed the evidence as showing what doctors had previously concluded: the claimant was not totally disabled. But the court was not convinced: “ Thus most of the surveillance, far from contradicting Maher's disability, seems to confirm her lifestyle as generally housebound with occasional, limited activity.”

Interestingly, the court did not reinstate disability benefits, but instead returned the case to the administrator for further evaluation. Defendant’s attorney noted that three different review boards had found the video evidence did not show the employee met the definition of disability.

Facebook downgrades privacy policy

Background checks are getting easier everyday. Without getting customer consent, and following a decision by the Federal Trade Commission finding that the company had engaged in "unfair and deceptive" trade practices, Facebook announced today that it would make old posts available--even if archived. The FTC had found many instances where Facebook made profile information that a user chose to restrict to “Only Friends” or “Friends of Friends” accessible to any Platform Applications that the user’s Friends had used. More here.

Restyled federal rules of evidence

Seeking to avoid the new Coke marketing fiasco of the 1980s, the feds are rolling out the clarification in terms as a “restyled” FRE. Not new, just better. Enjoy a sip from the folks at Federal Evidence Review.

Investigation New England Patriots defensive rankings

Crack research staff here at Nardizzi Inc took a break from murders, frauds, infringing websites and sexual harassers to examine the 2001 Patriot (aka Marshall Faulk-killing) team, which won the Super Bowl over the Rams. That team was ranked:

24th in total yards defense.
6th in scoring defense.

Oddly enough the offense had similar ranks: 6th in scoring, 19th in yards.
Point differential was 99.

This year the Patriot defense is:

32nd in total yards defense.
10th in scoring defense.

Offense is 4th scoring, 2nd yards
Point differential is 90.

Scent of a Super Bowl lingers in the winter air...

* 2011 team however no longer employs one Antwan Harris, who combined in the greatest backyard football play ever, taking a lateral from Troy Brown after Brown blocked a Steeler field goal attempt. Harris ran 49 yards for a touchdown in the 2001 AFC Championship game, sending waves of Steeler fans into an icy depression (and spiking a notable increase in the Pittsburgh crime rate as well).
Courtesy of the research staff...

Doctor complains; federal agency cripples public database

Interesting story about a database run by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that maintains discipline and medical-malpractice information. Diligent journalists and investigators could reference the database and, via other sources, sometimes identify doctors with long histories of being sued or disciplined for medical malpractice. Neurosurgeon Robert T. Tenny of Overland Park, Kansas was identified in this manner. His complaints led to the database being shut down for a time, only to be relaunched --with users required to promise not to link information in the database with publicly available information, like court files. Congress is now looking at the agency’s role in restricting speech and use of public data.

No right of privacy in IP case

Judge Young in Liberty Media Holdings, LLC v. Swarm Sharing Hash File & Does 1 through 38, held "the constitutional presumption of openness of judicial proceedings" trumps the privacy claims of defendants, who swarmed to illegally download and distribute gay pornography. The film (with the winsome title “Corbin Fisher Amateur College Men Down on the Farm”) was downloaded illegally; the IP addresses of the downloaders was used to track and identify them. Young did leave an opening for defendants: “Nevertheless, should individual defendants be concerned about being publicly 'outed' as discovery proceeds, the Court will entertain those arguments on an individual basis.” 

FBI Stingray can track cell phones

The FBI pursued a man they called “the Hacker.” Using a cellphone-tracking device called Stingray, they focused on a California home and arrested the man. Stingrays can locate a mobile phone even when it’s not being used to make a call.

Oddly enough, a price list for Harris Corporation wireless surveillance products including Stingray was published on the website of the City of Miami. Cost is only $75,100.

Former SEC counsel Becker says ethics officer cleared him

Former Securities and Exchange Commission General Counsel David Becker has been criticized for making decisions on how victims of Madoff’s Ponzi scheme would recover assets because his family once had investment with Madoff’s firm. However, Becker said he disclosed the possible conflict of interest to the SEC chairman as well as the regulator’s ethics officer. Both cleared him to participate in the Madoff matter.

Glik wins; right to record police upheld in 1st Circuit

The Glik case has been resolved resoundingly in favor of the First Amendment right to publicly to record the activities of police officers on public business anywhere in the First Circuit. One quote summarizes the case best: "Glik filmed the defendant police officers in the Boston Common, the oldest city park in the United States and the apotheosis of a public forum.  In such traditional public spaces, the rights of the state to limit the exercise of First Amendment activity are 'sharply circumscribed.'"

On the MA wiretap law banning secret recordings, the court wrote: “The presence of probable cause was not even arguable here. ... For the reasons we have discussed, we see no basis in the law for a reasonable officer to conclude that such a conspicuous act of recording was 'secret' merely because the officer did not have actual knowledge of whether audio was being recorded.”

Beyond Bars: Dennis Maher moves on

In a Boston Globe piece, Dennis Maher has moved beyond the wrongful conviction that took prime years from his freedom. “I got over losing the 19 years of my life,’’ says Maher, 50, in an even tone. “I don’t try and make up for it because I can’t. The best that I can do is just go forward. Don’t hold the anger.’’

In addition to his job at Waste Management, where he started working one month after his release, Maher speaks publicly at conferences and other events involved with wrongful convictions and the importance of access to DNA testing. “It’s part of the healing process,’’ says Maher. “I enjoy it.’’

Setting witnesses at ease: one question to avoid

A former cop turned PI introduced himself to a witness during an interview. Case involved a contract dispute in the business session in Suffolk Superior Court. Within 10 second of the introduction, he said: “I’ve been doing this for a while so let’s start from the top: what is your Social Security Number?”

Asking someone a question like that does not make them feel warm and secure. A question like that makes people shut down. It suggests that the questioner is a clueless conversationalist or a creepy stalker. Not sure when the trend began for opening with such questions (“Nice to meet you. How big is your pancreas?”). But stop it. Now.

Chinese reverse mergers a growing problem

The number of lawsuits against Chinese reverse merger companies nearly tripled since 2010, according to a study by Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse and Cornerstone Research. "Securities Class Action Filings: 2011 Mid-Year Assessment," reports that 24 class action lawsuits were filed against Chinese reverse merger companies in 2011. Reverse mergers work as follows: a Chinese business is acquired by an American shell company that is publicly traded. The board then resigns, a Chinese-appointed board takes control and changes the company name. Voila: it now can issue new stock to investors, all without IPO costs and paperwork.

News of the World PI apologizes for phone hack

British private investigator Glenn Mulcaire is at the centre of the News of the World phone-hacking scandal. He issued a public apology and attributed mistakes made at the behest of News as due to "constant demand for results". He released the statement after his "vilification" following the revelation of the hacking of a missing schoolgirl's voicemails.

Federal agents get more leeway to investigate

The FBI: the Vault has a redacted but still interesting fact-filled guide on its website: FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG. It is undergoing a significant new change granting more power and less oversight to agents conducting the lowest category of investigations (termed an “assessment”). Assessments allow agents to look into people and organizations without any evidence of criminal or terrorist activity.

Under current rules, agents must open such an inquiry before they can search for information about a person in a commercial or law enforcement database. Under the new rules, agents will be allowed to search databases without making a record.

FBI received Santa Monica tip--in 2008

The Santa Monica Times reporting an intriguing story that a Las Vegas man vacationing in California recognized Whitey Bulger sitting on a park bench at historic Santa Monica Pier, chatting with a kid wearing a Boston T-shirt about city neighborhoods-- in 2008. The man recognized Bulger because he'd just seen the FBI corruption story featured on an episode of "America's Most Wanted."

Steve Katz, the show's co-executive producer, confirmed that the show did get a tip in 2008 that Bulger was in Santa Monica. He added that the information about Bulger being in Santa Monica was turned over to authorities. The FBI couldn’t confirm Thursday whether the agency ever received such a tip.
it.

Massachusetts access to DNA testing

Client Dennis Maher wrote an op-ed in the Herald and testified this week on a Post-conviction DNA Access Bill pending before the Joint Committee on the Judiciary. Maher was exonerated by DNA testing after spending close to 20 years in prison for rapes he did not commit. This firm later investigated on his behalf in a civil action, resulting in a multimillion dollar settlement.

Russian police officer cleared in prison death of lawyer

A senior Russian police officer was cleared of wrongdoing in prison death of lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, a lawyer working for UK hedge fund Hermitage Capital Management. A human rights commission appointed by President Dmitry Medvedev concluded the police had fabricated the charges against Magnitsky.

Wiretaps for suits

The recent insider trading conviction of billionaire Raj Rajaratnam shows that federal prosecutors will increasingly be using wiretaps to build fraud cases involving Wall Street executives. It also signals the growing acceptance by federal judges that, despite the extraordinary cost and invasiveness of such procedures (agents are directed to stop listening when talk turns from business to private--yes, stop the laughter), wiretaps have reached a kind of critical mass of acceptance in the surveillance nation we now inhabit.

In a related matter, Massachusetts law enforcement officials are pushing for a change to antiquated state wiretap laws. An interesting side note is that if the law is changed, it should signal the end to a large number of frivolous wiretapping charges brought against Mass. citizens who are documenting police activity. The Boston Police Dept. is being sued in a major case on that exact issue. The case is Glik v. Cunniffe et al., Civil Action No. 10-10150.
The story and video from the arrest is available here.

Yahoo joins Google: We want to stalk Americans for 18 months

Yahoo has announced that it will join Google in stalking Americans electronically in some form for 18 months (Yahoo had in 2008 reduced the amount of time it retained users’ Internet search data to a mere 90 days). Yahoo plans to extend the retention period this summer. Retained search data will include user’s IP addresses and cookies, which means data can be linked to individual devices or people. After 18 months, Yahoo will retain most of the data, but anonymize it so it cannot be linked to individuals.

Google has a slight variation in their policy which is being misreported in wake of this story: From Google: “We believe anonymizing IP addresses after 9 months and cookies in our search engine logs after 18 months strikes the right balance.” Stalkers do have some sense of decorum after all.

Judge refuses to snip non-compete

A Massachusetts court in Zona Corp. v McKinnon upheld a 1 year non-compete signed by a hair dresser who had been fired from the salon. The fact that the hair dresser employment came to end involuntarily did not affect the enforcement of the clause. At stake was the usual scenario that investigators are called upon to prove: the former employee was using confidential information to make contact with former customers. Some memorable situations at this firm have involved men who are violating a non-competition agreements and can't help bragging at the hotel bar to the lovely and attentive brunette--who is, of course, a private investigator.

Federal conviction rates remain high

Mass Lawyers Weekly reports again on the high conviction rates in federal court. In Massachusetts, federal court conviction rates are 89% in 2010. For that year, federal conviction rates were 87% nationwide. Some federal prosecutors attribute this to working closely with investigators from the beginning of a case. Others point out that federal prosecutors have greater leeway on picking which cases--especially white collar cases--to prosecute than do state prosecutors

By comparison, a 2006 article in the Pittsburg Tribune reported: “Between 2000 and 2005, 99 percent of the 435,000 federal criminal defendants prosecuted nationwide were convicted. The conviction rate was the same for the 2,130 criminal defendants prosecuted during that period in the Western District of Pennsylvania.
...
A defense lawyer had a different take: “A 90-plus percent conviction rate isn't something that should be applauded. I think it's something you should worry about," Boas said. "That's what you see in totalitarian regimes."

Offshore firms promised 318% return--in 190 day period

Mass. Sec. of State Securities Division filed a complaint against offshore firms Eagle Trades Ltd. and controlling member Terrance Osberger, as well as Osiris FX and FX Capital Services (and Osiris' Evan Andersen, Glenn Manterfield and Alberto Sciola). All are accused of violating state securities laws and, in some instance, defrauding investors. Eagle Trades claimed return rates between 299% and 318% --in just 190 days. The firm’s promotional literature included remarks like “ . . . we have reengineered the mold regarding HYIPS...think of it as a full-throttle upgrade to the typical HYIP routine you may or may not be familiar with....”

Due diligence by investors would have easily raised red flags: Andersen had been barred for life from the securities industry in Massachusetts after he and Manterfield were charged both by Massachusetts and the Securities and Exchange Commission with defrauding investors in 2007.

Case on scope of DPPA appealed to Supreme Ct.

A Texas case, Taylor v. Acxiom et al. is under appeal to the Supreme Court to clarify opposing rulings in federal courts about the scope of the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (18 U.S.C., Chapter 123, §§ 2721-2725. While the DPPA has specific provisions for law enforcement and private investigators to access the data, the state of Texas has allowed mail order businesses to purchase driving records. The plaintiffs in Taylor argue that neither type of defendant has access to the records.

Lumping the two types together seems a weak position given the specific exceptions of the statute. The crux of the dispute lies in the Taylor court’s determination that an authorized recipient of DMV records is not required to show that it is also an authorized user of the data. “Instead, an authorized recipient is authorized to resell to individuals for one or more of the specific purposes under section 2721 (b),” Judge William L. Garwood wrote on behalf of the 5th Circuit. The interpretation allows for an “authorized recipient to mean something different than one who has a permissible actual use.”

A case going the other direction was in Missouri. In 2008, Judge Nanette K. Laughrey found in Roberts, et al.  v. The Source for Public Data, et al., that defendants did not qualify as “authorized recipients” of DMV records under the DPPA.

Whistleblower protections

Talking with some investigators who attended a qui tam conference, and one highlighted a good breakdown of protections and substantial cash rewards available to whistleblowers who provide the Securities and Exchange Commission with information relating to corporate and securities fraud.  So remember, if you have evidence that a Wall Street boy is a dirty rogue, call the SEC and help yourself to a chunk of his year end bonus.

Surveillance drones hovering over a backyard near you

Washington Post reports that in Texas, the Department of Public Safety used a small bird-size device called a Wasp to float over a backyard and beam video to agents before a search warrant was executed. As is typical in these scenarios, the technology has migrated from military use to law enforcement. Obvious problems with privacy laws, and the FAA is limiting use to emergency situations. But at a cost of just $50,000, the civil sector will be next.

Is reading email from another person's account a crime?

A Michigan DA is charging a man, Leon Walker, with unlawfully reading his then-wife's email, which showed she was having an affair with a man who once had been arrested for beating her in front of her son. Walker then gave the emails to her first husband, the child's father, to protect the boy. Most defense lawyers are commenting that they have never seen anyone charged before in these circumstances. Civil penalties may be justified, but as Walker's lawyer remarked; "This is a hacking statute, the kind of statute they use if you try to break into a government system or private business for some nefarious purpose. It's to protect against identity fraud, to keep somebody from taking somebody's intellectual property or trade secrets. I have to ask: 'Don't the prosecutors have more important things to do with their time?'

Read More...

Email tracing: Finding out who is behind anonymous email accounts

Over the past few years, we have seen increasing numbers of cases involving requests to trace anonymous email accounts. Yahoo, Hotmail, Gmail, and countless other firms offer these sorts of free and anonymous accounts. Sometimes, the email headers have information that can help identify a city from where the emails were sent.

But increasingly, different databases are aggregating data in such a way that we can tie an IP address from the harassing email to a physical address; and then, using a 3rd database, confirm who resides at such an address and was likely the sender of the harassing emails. This is due to the practice of certain companies that log IP addresses and link them to physical addresses of customers who order items on the internet (and then sell the data to 3rd parties). As time passes, these databases are growing exponentially in power and scope--the Matrix of movie fame.

Following up with in-person interviews of the individuals, serving them a subpoena or summoning them to court usually solves the problem.

Film "Conviction" getting excellent reviews

The film "Conviction", which details Betty Anne Waters' odyssey to free her wrongfully convicted brother Kenny Waters, has received excellent reviews. Our investigation in a later civil case led to evidence that allowed the The Estate of Kenneth Waters to settle a civil rights case against The Ayer Police Department, Officer Nancy Taylor, and other Ayer police officers, for $3.4 million.

Kenneth Waters was wrongfully arrested and convicted. He served 18 years of a life sentence for the 1980 murder and armed robbery of Katharina Brow. Waters was released from prison after DNA evidence had revealed the blood of an unknown person at the murder scene. His sister, Betty Anne Waters, had put herself through law school in order to represent one client: her brother. She located the biological evidence and worked to have it subjected to DNA testing.

The Waters case alleged that the Ayer Police and Taylor's deliberate bad-faith suppression of favorable evidence led to his conviction – including suppression of evidence that Waters was not the source of the perpetrator’s bloody fingerprint on a piece of a toaster on the dining room floor; as well as suppression of Waters’ time card from work, which cemented his alibi. Taylor was also accused of used coercive and suggestive tactics to manufacture falsely incriminating statements from witnesses Brenda Marsh and Roseanna Perry.

DAs: We didn't know cops work on our cases.

At the State House last week, several Massachusetts district attorneys tried to convince a skeptical crowd that their budget, in which they left out a $1.4 billion dollar investigative item (ie., the police who investigate their cases) was underfunded compared to the budget for public defenders. They did not make the same mistake when presenting the CPCS/public defender budget.

Judge for yourself when the DAs try Fuzzy Math 101 again at the Indigent Defense program at Suffolk Law School at 7:30 AM on Monday, November 22, 2010.

Interviews with federal agents

As we await a verdict in a federal case, the venue brings to mind the fact that most people do not realize the unique perils of being interviewed by federal agents. It is a crime to tell a lie to any agent of federal government. The official report of the interview will be an FBI Form 302, which is an agent''s subjective report of the interview. Even a minor change you make in a later recollection of events, something we all do every day as we have conversations about past events, can subject you to a Section 1001 charge. You may be charged even if the government is not misled by the lie, if the lie is only to cover up an embarrassing fact unrelated to the investigation, and whether it comes in an informal interview or under oath.

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 makes it a crime to: knowingly and willfully make any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the United States. The lie does not have to be made to an employee of the government so long as it is "within the jurisdiction" of the (rather enormous) federal government. The falsehood must be "material" and this requirement is met if the statement has the "natural tendency to influence or [is] capable of influencing, the decision of the decision-making body to which it is addressed."

And to top off the absurdity: federal agents can lie to you during an interview. And that is no joke.

Easiest way to see federal agents wilt in bright sunlight is to agree to an interview-- but only if you are allowed to tape record the interview (caveat: do not tape conversations without permission as it may open other cans of worms). Typically, agents are instructed to not participate in recorded interviews, despite the overwhelming imbalance between the parties. A bit wimpy, in my opinion.

Bimbo Bakeries crumbles opposition in trade secret case

A recent PA case, Bimbo Bakeries v. Botticella, the Third Circuit held that if the facts show a “substantial threat” of misappropriation, an employer may be able to obstruct mobility of former employees -- even in the absence of a non-compete agreement.

Botticella was a senior executive at Bimbo Bakeries, the maker of Thomas’, Entenmann’s, and Boboli brands. He was se to move to a competitor, Hostess. While he had signed an agreement to never disclose Bimbo’s proprietary information, he had not signed a non-compete. Nonetheless, despite the public interest in employees' freedom to work where they please, the court held that Bimbo could stop Botticella from working in light of evidence that he was copying files from his laptop to external devices prior to leaving Bimbo (he claimed he did so only to practice his computer skills; the court squashed this cupcake argument).

Thus if a solid forensic and background investigation shows a “substantial threat” of misappropriation, the employee is left with crumbs.

Old news becomes new again depending on who won

Interesting note showing the national media misreporting the ongoing controversey in GPS privacy cases: "Media discovers August 27th that Pineda-Moreno was decided January 11th"

Supreme Ct. ready to settle GPS surveillance - privacy issue?

The 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches by the government continues to clash with technology as judges seem to be deciding cases, not on any objective standard, but more on former Justice Potter Stewart's hopelessly subjective "But I know it when I see it" standard.

Latest case is United States v. Maynard, where a Washington DC court struck down a man's conviction in a drug case on the grounds the police unlawfully tracked his movement with a GPS device for 24 hours per day--a device installed without a warrant. Thus the court contradicted decisions GPS-related cases by appellate panels in Chicago, St. Louis and San Francisco.

Courts have held that the Fourth Amendment does not cover surveillance of a suspect because people have no expectation of privacy for actions exposed to public view. But the DC appeals court held that people expect their overall movements to be private because most people see only isolated moments of someone's life. Contrast that to a police department’s GPS technology that inexpensively tracks someone’s comings and goings for weeks at a time: "A person who knows all of another’s travels can deduce whether he is a weekly churchgoer, a heavy drinker, a regular at the gym, an unfaithful husband, an outpatient receiving medical treatment, an associate of particular individual or political groups — and not just one such fact about a person, but all such facts.”

In other privacy cases, courts have recognized that aggregating information can lead to practices that, without technological improvements, are not a burden on privacy (for example, state databases that aggregate criminal records may have limited access, even while each court docket is considered public record).

SJC melts old snow/ice accumulation standard

The SJC in Papadopoulos v. Target Corp abandoned the bizarre Mass. distinction between "natural and unnatural accumulations of snow and ice" which had constituted an exception to the general rule of premises liability that a property owner owes a duty to all lawful visitors to use reasonable care.

The new standard: "We now will apply to hazards arising from snow and ice the same obligation that a property owner owes to lawful visitors as to all other hazards: a duty to act as a reasonable person under all of the circumstances including the likelihood of injury to others, the probable seriousness of such injuries, and the burden of reducing or avoiding the risk. … If a property owner knows or reasonably should know of a dangerous condition on its property, whether arising from an accumulation of snow or ice, or rust on a railing, or a discarded banana peel, the property owner owes a duty to lawful visitors to make reasonable efforts to protect lawful visitors against the danger.

Bottom line: start shoveling.

Governor Patrick signs CORI Reform

The new Criminal Offender Record Information law (CORI) prohibits employers from asking on an “initial written application form” about an applicant’s “criminal offender record information,” which includes information about criminal charges, arrests, and incarcerations. The term “initial written application" in the new text may allow employers to continue to question applicants about felony and certain misdemeanor convictions later in the process. Moreover, the law does not address classic court docket research conducted by investigators.

1982 Lowell arson conviction may be reconsidered

The Boston Globe did a piece on flaws in an arson investigation that led to the conviction of N&A INC client Victor Rosario. An appeal is being filed.

Real CORI reform

The movement to "reform" CORI by making record sealing easier and restricting public access sounds wonderful. But it ignores the fundamental problem with the database. Those who know public records in Massachusetts understand that CORI--which has never been accessible in full by the public except to those who order their own report--has always been a misleading source of criminal record data. CORI can be difficult to understand and does not contain any case background information. Moreover, it is based on records that have been considered public for decades. A federal judge came close in one case to overturning the CORI law by deeming the information to be essentially computerized records of court dockets, which have traditionally been open public records.

Instead of telling businesses how to hire, we should allow businesses to gather as much information as they deem necessary--many of them routinely make better judgments than elected officials. More to the point: businesses will continue to hire investigators to check public court documents to gather the information they need to run their businesses.

Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower protects employees of mutual fund 

Another Massachusetts first: Last week, a federal district court judge ruled that whistleblower protections under Sarbanes Oxley apply to employees of private firms that operate and advise mutual funds--the first time such provisions have been applied in this manner. Good discussion here on the case involving Fidelity.

Massachusetts Wiretap Act Governs Out of State Telephone Recording Massachusetts Wiretap Act Governs Out of State Telephone Recording

A Massachusetts Superior Court judge ruled in In Heffernan v. Hashampour that the state Wiretap Act applies when a party outside of Massachusetts secretly records a telephone call to a party in this state. Thus Massachusetts continues to provide its citizens with protection (some say over-protection) from secretive audio recordings. The flip side of this protection can be seen in the case of Simon Glik, who was arrested for video recording police officers making an arrest near Boston Common in 2007. The criminal charges were dropped and Glik has filed a civil rights lawsuit against the City of Boston and three Boston police officers, arguing that public space is not covered by the wiretap law (ie. there is no expectation of privacy in a public place).

The new problem with DNA testing

Washington Monthly has a great piece on how DNA evidence is turning out to be unreliable in certain situations. As the article notes: "Where the DNA is often incomplete or degraded, and there are few other clues to go on, the reliability of DNA evidence plummets—a fact that jurors weighing such cases are almost never told." A lot of science is covered-- worth the effort to read closely.