California Court of Appeal finds geofence warrant unconstitutional
1–10 of 46 posts
Re: California Court of Appeal finds geofence warrant unconstitutional
#2Dear country, we voted that guy out of the LASD and also introduced the ability to sack the Sheriff before an election
Yep, we literally never had any method of accountability of the LASD and this guy finally took that to an extreme
Hope the new guy Luna is keeping up
Re: California Court of Appeal finds geofence warrant unconstitutional
#3> Ultimately, the court’s CalECPA analysis proved fatal to the defendants’ case. Despite ruling the warrant violated the Fourth Amendment, the court refused to suppress the evidence, finding the officers acted in good faith based on a facially valid warrant.
Incredible. This is like the government version of a corporation laundering its bad behavior through an undercapitalized shell company to shield it from liability.
Re: California Court of Appeal finds geofence warrant unconstitutional
#4Found something interesting not mentioned in the article: apparently, police ransacked six innocent peoples' Google data, in the process of getting to the two guilty ones.
- "Google produced a list of eight anonymized accounts that had been at two or more of the six locations at the relevant time periods. Of the eight accounts, one had been at four of the geofence locations, one at three locations and the remaining six had been at two locations. Haas requested, and Google produced, identification information for all eight accounts. Two of those accounts (the ones that had been at three and four of the locations) ultimately led authorities to Meza and Meneses."
The court document doesn't elaborate on what happened to those six people (were they even informed of the search, after the fact?) Maybe they don't care. From the judicial perspective, there is no such thing as a constitutional privacy right. The Fourth Amendment, for example, protects more narrowly against search in the context of criminal prosecution: no prosecution, no rights violation.
Re: California Court of Appeal finds geofence warrant unconstitutional
#5Found something interesting not mentioned in the article: apparently, police ransacked six innocent peoples' Google data, in the process of getting to the two guilty ones. - "Google produced a list of eight anonymized accounts that had been at two or more of the six locations at the relevant time periods. Of the eight accounts, one had been at four of the geofence locations, one at three locations and the remaining s…
> The Fourth Amendment, for example, protects more narrowly against search in the context of criminal prosecution: no prosecution, no rights violation.
How can that be true, since the 4th amendment doesn't include any word or phrase referring to a prosecution?
Re: California Court of Appeal finds geofence warrant unconstitutional
#6Found something interesting not mentioned in the article: apparently, police ransacked six innocent peoples' Google data, in the process of getting to the two guilty ones. - "Google produced a list of eight anonymized accounts that had been at two or more of the six locations at the relevant time periods. Of the eight accounts, one had been at four of the geofence locations, one at three locations and the remaining s…
> The Fourth Amendment, for example, protects more narrowly against search in the context of criminal prosecution: no prosecution, no rights violation. How can that be true, since the 4th amendment doesn't include any word or phrase referring to a prosecution?
Neither does it have any specific language for remedies. The courts created a remedy for Fourth Amendment violations in the context of prosecution (exclusion of evidence), but not for the general case.
Re: California Court of Appeal finds geofence warrant unconstitutional
#7Found something interesting not mentioned in the article: apparently, police ransacked six innocent peoples' Google data, in the process of getting to the two guilty ones. - "Google produced a list of eight anonymized accounts that had been at two or more of the six locations at the relevant time periods. Of the eight accounts, one had been at four of the geofence locations, one at three locations and the remaining s…
> The Fourth Amendment, for example, protects more narrowly against search in the context of criminal prosecution: no prosecution, no rights violation. How can that be true, since the 4th amendment doesn't include any word or phrase referring to a prosecution?
The Constitution puts limits on what the government can do, but if the government does those things anyway, there's no automatic penalty. You as an individual could ask a court to order the government to stop or otherwise undo the harm, but if you weren't harmed as a result of that unconstitutional act, or if you were harmed but there's nothing the court could do about it, then you don't have standing to ask the court to do anything.
It's something of a bug in the way America works. If cops conducting a search of your home disconnect all of your security cameras during the search, that's probably unconstitutional, but you can't prove that it harmed you, and being illegal isn't the same thing as being a crime, so it's just an unconstitutional thing that happened, and that's where the story ends.
Re: California Court of Appeal finds geofence warrant unconstitutional
#8Does this sound like something written by gpt-3 ?
Re: California Court of Appeal finds geofence warrant unconstitutional
#9> Ultimately, the court’s CalECPA analysis proved fatal to the defendants’ case. Despite ruling the warrant violated the Fourth Amendment, the court refused to suppress the evidence, finding the officers acted in good faith based on a facially valid warrant. Incredible. This is like the government version of a corporation laundering its bad behavior through an undercapitalized shell company to shield it from liabilit…
Humans of normalized biological features exhibit similar states of logic and behavior.
It’s almost as if the language of “politician” and “business leader” create a fake world of hallucination and it’s all just meat popsicles jockeying for economic clout.
Re: California Court of Appeal finds geofence warrant unconstitutional
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Fourth Amendment, for example, protects more narrowly against search in the context of criminal prosecution: no prosecution, no rights violation. How can that be true, since the 4th amendment doesn't include any word or phrase referring to a prosecution?
The Constitution puts limits on what the government can do, but if the government does those things anyway, there's no automatic penalty. You as an individual could ask a court to order the government to stop or otherwise undo the harm, but if you weren't harmed as a result of that unconstitutional act, or if you were harmed but there's nothing the court could do about it, then you don't have standing to ask the cour…
Of course, you could argue that qualified immunity has no constitutional or solid legal basis either, and is basically a creation of the judicial branch to simplify exception handling.