Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 311 posts

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#221

Post by s1artibartfast »

newaccountman2 wrote: post #24
TimorousBestie wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a pet theory that it’s difficult for her to convince the far right wing of the court to let her write the majority opinion, and that’s part of what is fueling these uncharacteristic or “independent” moments.

I am pretty sure the Chief Justice chooses who writes the opinion when he (or, one day, she) is in the majority, and if that's right, then Roberts is the only one she would have to convince

Iirc, they do a straw poll avter oral arguments to see what the majority is and most senior assigns. The writing is generally spread equally across justices over a term. It is a workload thing

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#222

Post by estearum »

pseudo0 wrote: post #91
sidewndr46 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

one of the more fun things I learned during criminal court in Texas is that the absence of forensic evidence cannot exonerate an individual. The prosecutor and the judge covered that despite not having any forensic evidence, the jury would still be expected to be able to convict the defendant. If you weren't OK with that you weren't eligible to serve on a jury.

They are trying to avoid a situation where you end up with one juror who watches a lot of CSI and insists that they need forensic evidence to convict, despite having a dozen eye-witnesses. If a juror cannot imagine a circumstance where the evidence could be beyond a reasonable doubt based on non-forensic evidence, then they aren't suitable to be a juror.

Eye-witness evidence: so unreliable it's an active insult that people gesture towards it as one of the pinnacle forms of evidence.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#223

Post by mjevans »

rootusrootus wrote: post #146
BeetleB wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source for this? As I recall, his phone was off when he committed the murders. In fact, they used the evidence that it had been turned off just for the duration of the murders (with some padding) against him. If you're going to commit a crime, don't suddenly turn off your phone if you don't have a history of doing so!

Or just leave it at home on your bedside table where you ought to be sleeping instead of out killing.

I have on at least two occasions forgotten my phone in my car at highly inconvenient times... One of which was just before a flight, for a vacation. I was amazed it had any battery life at all when I got back.

Yes, this stuff does happen to real people doing normal things.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#224

Post by sidewndr46 »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #217
sidewndr46 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The case was a shooting. It seemed remarkable they had neither a gun, spent cartridge cases, blood, flesh, wounds, or anything in the way of physical evidence.

The question remains what they did have.

In terms of physical evidence? None.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#225

Post by esikich »

estearum wrote: post #222
pseudo0 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are trying to avoid a situation where you end up with one juror who watches a lot of CSI and insists that they need forensic evidence to convict, despite having a dozen eye-witnesses. If a juror cannot imagine a circumstance where the evidence could be beyond a reasonable doubt based on non-forensic evidence, then they aren't suitable to be a juror.

Eye-witness evidence: so unreliable it's an active insult that people gesture towards it as one of the pinnacle forms of evidence.

[dead]

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#226

Post by JoshTriplett »

tqi wrote: post #219
JoshTriplett wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on your local law, but in many, many places you cannot legally record a conversation you aren't a party to, even in public. In the US, in many states, it's not permitted to record a conversation you are a party to if others have not consented. There are various reasonable exceptions that permit recordings (e.g. public events, press conferences, trials, governmental meetings, recording interactions with police…

Afaik two party consent rules don't apply in public settings

Again, it depends heavily on the jurisdiction, as well as various other factors.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#227

Post by jmward01 »

So surveillance tech works. That isn't a question, it is a statement. In a perfect world only bad people would have it applied to them. The issue is that it is too easy now. When wire tapping became a thing it was a physical thing that had time and effort costs. Abuse of it was capped by capability to do it and that bar made it, to me, a reasonable compromise that a judge would need to issue a warrant and that the police would need to expend real, finite, resources to execute it. Without boundaries any surveillance tech is to dangerous to have. Maybe we need quotas? You can only request and monitor x# of people a month where x is a small number related to population size. We need to find ways to limit overreach of technology capabilities. I am glad this was decided this way but I really want a more concrete tool that limits all technologies like this.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#228

Post by simoncion »

qingcharles wrote: post #179
plagiarist wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That interpretation is insane to me. If all it takes is, "haha, oops," to use evidence gained from an unconstitutional search, people do not actually have Fourth Amendment rights. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, knowing that civil asset forfeiture is a thing.

This is mostly true. You have to remember that evidence exclusion for a constitutional violation is a modern thing, and it is what's known as "judge made," e.g. it wasn't made by legislature, it was invented by the courts. (Miranda warnings are the same -- I remember one time-travel book I was reading where the guy went back to 19th century New York and was complaining about the police beating him and not reading him…

> ...and it is what's known as "judge made," e.g. it wasn't made by legislature, it was invented by the courts.

In fairness, this describes so much of US law, and is why you can't really understand much of the rules that apply to you without also understanding all of the cases in which those rules were applied in novel ways.

Is it good that things work like that here? I don't think so, but I haven't thought through all of the particulars of another system.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#229

Post by s1artibartfast »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #224
s1artibartfast wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question remains what they did have.

In terms of physical evidence? None.

Evidence, not physical evidence. The instructions seem entirely reasonable.

There is no hard rule for physical evidence. If other evidence is enough to convince 12 jurors beyond a reasonable doubt, it could be very significant.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#230

Post by Spooky23 »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #65
autoexec wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I guess don't bring your phone to a bank robbery. You should also make sure not to bring your phone to anywhere where a nearby crime is happening because that's all it takes to make you a suspect and force you spend a bunch of money defending yourself. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/google-tracked-his-bike... Hopefully rulings like this make that scenario a little less likely to happen, but it doesn't stop it…

one of the more fun things I learned during criminal court in Texas is that the absence of forensic evidence cannot exonerate an individual. The prosecutor and the judge covered that despite not having any forensic evidence, the jury would still be expected to be able to convict the defendant. If you weren't OK with that you weren't eligible to serve on a jury.

Individuals don’t require exoneration in court.

The prosecution, regardless of unethical grandstanding, have a duty to prove the case without any resaonable doubt. They hold the burden of proof.

I would, of course, agree with them as physical evidence isn’t necessarily a requirement to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt. But I would certainly draw my own inference from their mendacity if they used those words.

Your duty as a juror is to make a determination of fact and apply the law as guided by the judge to reach a verdict. When the prosecutor gives you some blabber approaching instructions, that’s an attempt to influence you.

Post reply on HN