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

Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

404media.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 208 posts

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#11

Post by ceejayoz »

wutwutwat wrote: post #9
hiatus wrote: post #2

> U.S. District Juste Miranda M. Du rejected this argument, but wouldn’t suppress the evidence. “The Court finds that a tower dump is a search and the warrant law enforcement used to get it is a general warrant forbidden under the Fourth Amendment,” she said in a ruling filed on April 11. “That said, because the Court appears to be the first court within the Ninth Circuit to reach this conclusion and the good faith e…

Who does the court work for? The government. Who do the police work for? The government. Yeah yeah, they work for “the people” “the tax payer” whatever. They work for the government. They get their paychecks from the same place. What are you expecting here? This isn’t equal.

There's a very good chance the cops in question do not work for the Federal government. They certainly don't work for the judicial branch. It isn't a perfect setup, but it's better than many.

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#12

Post by ty6853 »

wutwutwat wrote: post #9
hiatus wrote: post #2

> U.S. District Juste Miranda M. Du rejected this argument, but wouldn’t suppress the evidence. “The Court finds that a tower dump is a search and the warrant law enforcement used to get it is a general warrant forbidden under the Fourth Amendment,” she said in a ruling filed on April 11. “That said, because the Court appears to be the first court within the Ninth Circuit to reach this conclusion and the good faith e…

Who does the court work for? The government. Who do the police work for? The government. Yeah yeah, they work for “the people” “the tax payer” whatever. They work for the government. They get their paychecks from the same place. What are you expecting here? This isn’t equal.

It's ironic that Milton Friedman, the guy that invented income tax withholding, was one of the staunchest fighters against it in the end.

They all get their paycheck straight out your paycheck before you even think about it. It's absolutely brilliant. No one would actually pay for most the horse-shit we get in return if you had to sign the check.

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#13

Post by mjd »

hiatus wrote: post #2

> U.S. District Juste Miranda M. Du rejected this argument, but wouldn’t suppress the evidence. “The Court finds that a tower dump is a search and the warrant law enforcement used to get it is a general warrant forbidden under the Fourth Amendment,” she said in a ruling filed on April 11. “That said, because the Court appears to be the first court within the Ninth Circuit to reach this conclusion and the good faith e…

The rule that illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible exists to disincentivize the police from obtaining evidence illegally.

But if the police believed, in good faith, that a particular search was legal and reasonable, based on the fact that a judge authorized them to perform it, then excluding the resulting evidence doesn't serve that purpose.

Update: This is not a new thing. The good-faith exception has been in U.S. law for decades. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good-faith_exception . You may not like it, but it's not something the judge just made up out of thin air.

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#14

Post by ty6853 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #11
wutwutwat wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who does the court work for? The government. Who do the police work for? The government. Yeah yeah, they work for “the people” “the tax payer” whatever. They work for the government. They get their paychecks from the same place. What are you expecting here? This isn’t equal.

There's a very good chance the cops in question do not work for the Federal government. They certainly don't work for the judicial branch. It isn't a perfect setup, but it's better than many.

The whole thing is intertwined. Podunk cops often get put on 3 letter task forces and work in a mutual arrangement with each other. They often have a really clever scam going on where they kick seizures up to federal agencies, since it is so much harder to block/contest federal forfeitures than local ones, and then the federal agencies kick back a fraction of it.

Maybe their paychecks don't come from the federal government nominally but in practice it's highly intermixed.

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#15

Post by ty6853 »

mjd wrote: post #13
hiatus wrote: post #2

> U.S. District Juste Miranda M. Du rejected this argument, but wouldn’t suppress the evidence. “The Court finds that a tower dump is a search and the warrant law enforcement used to get it is a general warrant forbidden under the Fourth Amendment,” she said in a ruling filed on April 11. “That said, because the Court appears to be the first court within the Ninth Circuit to reach this conclusion and the good faith e…

The rule that illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible exists to disincentivize the police from obtaining evidence illegally. But if the police believed, in good faith, that a particular search was legal and reasonable, based on the fact that a judge authorized them to perform it, then excluding the resulting evidence doesn't serve that purpose. Update : This is not a new thing. The good-faith exception has been i…

If I believe, in good faith, I have not broken the law. I should not be convicted.

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#16

Post by mjd »

Analemma_ wrote: post #8

Do law schools even bother teaching about "fruit of the poisoned tree" anymore? It's clearly a dead letter; this is yet another ruling that if you gather evidence illegally you'll get a finger-wag but allowed to proceed as usual. Why even have a notion of legality of evidence if it doesn't matter?

The purpose of the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine is to disincentivize illegal collection of evidence. But there has always been a good-faith exception to it: if the police genuinely believed that what they were doing was legal, as they did in this case, relying on established legal precedent, then throwing out the evidence doesn't disincentivize anything.

But the declaration that cell tower dumps are illegal now disincentivizes future police from relying on dumps, since they now know (or should know) that such evidence will be thrown out. And more to the point, magistrate judges will stop issuing warrants for cell tower dumps.

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#17

Post by mjd »

ty6853 wrote: post #15
mjd wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rule that illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible exists to disincentivize the police from obtaining evidence illegally. But if the police believed, in good faith, that a particular search was legal and reasonable, based on the fact that a judge authorized them to perform it, then excluding the resulting evidence doesn't serve that purpose. Update : This is not a new thing. The good-faith exception has been i…

If I believe, in good faith, I have not broken the law. I should not be convicted.

This is not responsive. The police did not commit a crime here.

Also note that there are good-faith defenses to all sorts of crimes, because (for example) there is a difference between knowingly defrauding a customer and just making a mistake.

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#18

Post by encom »

ty6853 wrote: post #15
mjd wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rule that illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible exists to disincentivize the police from obtaining evidence illegally. But if the police believed, in good faith, that a particular search was legal and reasonable, based on the fact that a judge authorized them to perform it, then excluding the resulting evidence doesn't serve that purpose. Update : This is not a new thing. The good-faith exception has been i…

If I believe, in good faith, I have not broken the law. I should not be convicted.

If you can cite previous court cases in your favour, you probably won't.

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#19

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ty6853 wrote: post #15
mjd wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rule that illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible exists to disincentivize the police from obtaining evidence illegally. But if the police believed, in good faith, that a particular search was legal and reasonable, based on the fact that a judge authorized them to perform it, then excluding the resulting evidence doesn't serve that purpose. Update : This is not a new thing. The good-faith exception has been i…

If I believe, in good faith, I have not broken the law. I should not be convicted.

> If I believe, in good faith, I have not broken the law. I should not be convicted

How often does this actually happen in criminal matters?

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#20

Post by topspin »

mjd wrote: post #16
Analemma_ wrote: post #8

Do law schools even bother teaching about "fruit of the poisoned tree" anymore? It's clearly a dead letter; this is yet another ruling that if you gather evidence illegally you'll get a finger-wag but allowed to proceed as usual. Why even have a notion of legality of evidence if it doesn't matter?

The purpose of the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine is to disincentivize illegal collection of evidence. But there has always been a good-faith exception to it: if the police genuinely believed that what they were doing was legal, as they did in this case, relying on established legal precedent, then throwing out the evidence doesn't disincentivize anything. But the declaration that cell tower dumps are illegal…

"fruit of the poisonous tree" is one of those "magic words" that a lot of people think will preclude prosecution. Judges frequently make exceptions and judgement calls on whether a given search was legal, and people are frequently convicted on "poisoned" evidence, and evidence compromised in all sorts of other ways.
Post reply on HN