One of the newest amendments to the Missouri Constitution might undermine enforcement efforts against the state�s most common consumer complaint, telemarketing calls to people signed up for the state�s no-call list.

Charter Communications Inc. is using Amendment 9, which added electronic communications and data to the items protected from unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement, to challenge demands from Attorney General Chris Koster that it turn over call records for two customers.

Amendment 9, presented as stronger privacy protection, passed Aug. 5 with 75 percent of the vote. It requires a warrant based on probable cause to obtain data. The amendment, which took effect 30 days after it was approved by voters, �demonstrates a clear public policy choice� against �government harvesting of citizens� electronic data without their knowledge, without a warrant and without probable cause,� Charter attorney Steven Sherman of Thompson Colburn wrote in court pleadings.

Charter is asking Judge Patricia Joyce to quash two �Civil Investigative Demand� letters issued June and July. The letters are a special tool created by lawmakers to allow the attorney general to investigate consumer complaints under the Merchandising Practices Act.

The letters sent to Charter have two targets, one unknown and one named as Abner Solutions LLC, owner of a toll-free number that was not working Tuesday.

Koster�s office asked for records of all calls made to Missouri area codes from the toll-free number and, in the case of the unknown target, an Internet user address.

Charter cited the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act in addition to the new Missouri constitutional provision in its effort to block Koster�s investigation. The letters don�t meet the federal standards for subpoenas that the company must comply with, Sherman wrote.

In documents seeking to uphold the investigative letters, Assistant Attorney General Joshua Jones wrote that �not only is respondent�s argument unsupported by any case law, it is unduly broad and would result in the elimination of �Civil Investigative Demands� in their entirety.�

In defense of the letters, Jones wrote that they are the equivalent of the �administrative subpoena� recognized by federal law. In addition, he wrote, the federal and state protections only apply to cases where criminal penalties are possible.

The investigative letters allow the attorney general to obtain information without seeking search warrants or otherwise going to court in a way that might alert the target of investigations.

Alleged no-call violations are by far the largest single category of consumer complaints to Koster�s office, averaging 110 to 160 per workday for the past three years. Koster�s office has won judgments for $1.5 million in penalties since the beginning of 2012. Koster�s office declined a request for an interview, citing the pending litigation.

A violation of the no-call law can be costly, up to $5,000 per call, but it is a civil penalty. Because it is as punitive as criminal penalties, Charter deserves the same protections, Sherman wrote.

�Charter is committed to protecting its customers� information and takes the position that, in most cases, the law requires the Attorney General to issue an administrative subpoena if he requests customer information,� Charter said a statement issued by Anita Lamont, senior director of external communications.

The investigative letters are not subpoenas, the company said, and the new additions to the Missouri Constitution �explicitly protects customer information and data from access by the Attorney General without proper process.�