Supreme court bans police access to phone data without a warrant

#27
#27
lawgator1 said:
I've defended one of them in federal court in a case that involved use of the technology, and a warrant to use it. Unfortunately, the technology was limited in its ability to track, causing them to go to the wrong house.



They did, however, eventually catch the bad guy.
Click to expand...

In this case the technology is not precise either. Can place you between a couple to a hundred city blocks. That distance is even greater in rural areas.
 
#32
#32
lawgator1 said:
I've defended one of them in federal court in a case that involved use of the technology, and a warrant to use it. Unfortunately, the technology was limited in its ability to track, causing them to go to the wrong house.



They did, however, eventually catch the bad guy.
Click to expand...

So what happened to the victims at the wrong house? Did they even get an apology?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#33
#33
roosterjbh said:
John Roberts plus the 4 liberal leaning judges on the good side of this. Haven't read the dissenting opinion but I don't understand what the more conservative judges were thinking.
Click to expand...

Just my opinion, but most older conservatives side with the cops and the police state over individuals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#34
#34
AM64 said:
About damn time. Using someone's captured words and thoughts should violate the right against forced self incrimination. Particularly the case when brief statements, like a text, could be taken out of context because brevity can preclude full contextual background and meaning.
Click to expand...

while I agree in principle I believe this case was about phone records (eg. numbers called/received, location, etc.) rather than words either written or recorded.
 
#35
#35
roosterjbh said:
John Roberts plus the 4 liberal leaning judges on the good side of this. Haven't read the dissenting opinion but I don't understand what the more conservative judges were thinking.
Click to expand...

sounds like the dissent argued warrants aren't needed for other transactional records and phone records are the same type thing.

seems a big difference is that the phone records serve as location records
 
#36
#36
lawgator1 said:
I've defended one of them in federal court in a case that involved use of the technology, and a warrant to use it. Unfortunately, the technology was limited in its ability to track, causing them to go to the wrong house.



They did, however, eventually catch the bad guy.
Click to expand...

Imagine that, LG on the wrong side. Who would have thunk it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#38
#38
AM64 said:
The changes after 9/11 were horrendous in terms of freedoms. I think much of the current police problems stem directly from the 9/11 militarization of cops - it has really turned it into an us vs them kind of thing. Mayberry would have a SWAT team these days.
Click to expand...

Yeah, The Patriot Act was one of the biggest reactionary blunders in our history.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#41
#41
It's been a minute since my last criminal procedure and law class but... wasn't this ruled on years ago?
 
#42
#42
volinbham said:
while I agree in principle I believe this case was about phone records (eg. numbers called/received, location, etc.) rather than words either written or recorded.
Click to expand...

I know, but just about anything defining where you go, what you say, who you meet, etc gathered from a phone bypasses the right to avoid disclosing it under the Fifth Amendment. Besides according to libs and their courts just about anything is "free speech", so it's even hard to classify all that info as something different from verbiage you would tell an investigator.
 
#43
#43
lawgator1 said:
Most of the agencies I deal with, if not all, get a warrant first already.
Click to expand...

True. This is much ado about nothing. Sloppy work.

Only time I can think one wouldn’t be obtained is with exigency. Ie missing/endangered person etc. If I’m not mistaken the providers have required a sw since the early 2k’s.
 
#44
#44
Vol_Doc said:
Lol, the vast majority of Americans don't know what it's truly like to live in fear.
Click to expand...

I don't know. There are a lot of libs - especially the millennial types looking for safe spaces, so the number must be getting pretty big. Then apparently you have to add in the paranoid Black Lives Matter crowd.
 
#45
#45
tim said:
True. This is much ado about nothing. Sloppy work.

Only time I can think one wouldn’t be obtained is with exigency. Ie missing/endangered person etc. If I’m not mistaken the providers have required a sw since the early 2k’s.
Click to expand...

Doesn't a search warrant to dig up information void the Fifth Amendment right? I'm not pro criminal, but I am extremely anti authoritarian - particularly the people who wield and perhaps not too infrequently abuse their powers. See Mueller and his open ended digging expeditions as a reference. Then you have security agencies recording everything (including US citizens) looking for a whiff of anything to investigate, and apparently missing anything reeking of terrorism.
 
#46
#46
AM64 said:
I don't know. There are a lot of libs - especially the millennial types looking for safe spaces, so the number must be getting pretty big. Then apparently you have to add in the paranoid Black Lives Matter crowd.
Click to expand...

Well played.
 
#48
#48
AM64 said:
Doesn't a search warrant to dig up information void the Fifth Amendment right? I'm not pro criminal, but I am extremely anti authoritarian - particularly the people who wield and perhaps not too infrequently abuse their powers. See Mueller and his open ended digging expeditions as a reference. Then you have security agencies recording everything (including US citizens) looking for a whiff of anything to investigate, and apparently missing anything reeking of terrorism.
Click to expand...

A sw requires probable cause. I think we can all agree Mueller has moved the goalposts and expanded his authority. Obtaining historical geolocations is a great tool but in a real investigation it’s mostly used to verify a suspect or clear a suspect. First, you have to have a crime at a location and thendevelop a suspect to historically geolocate with their own device. Mueller is probably doing it in reverse.
 
#49
#49
tim said:
A sw requires probable cause. I think we can all agree Mueller has moved the goalposts and expanded his authority. Obtaining historical geolocations is a great tool but in a real investigation it’s mostly used to verify a suspect or clear a suspect. First, you have to have a crime at a location and thendevelop a suspect to historically geolocate with their own device. Mueller is probably doing it in reverse.
Click to expand...

To me that's what happens when there's nobody to police the top level police - the absolute power corrupts absolutely. And the thing about it being criminal to lie to a federal officer is a complete abuse of power - even in courts I think that requires taking an oath.

To me it matters because anyone interrogated long enough and asked variants of a question will eventually answer "incorrectly". Take "Are you still beating your wife - Y or N." "No." "When did you stop beating your wife?" "I never beat my wife." "You previously admitted that you beat your wife."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#50
#50
In general I believe in strict restrictions on privacy, but on the technical merits I don’t agree w the decision.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top