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

101–110 of 208 posts

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#101

Post by testing22321 »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #87
LinuxBender wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never talk to the police. Let your lawyers do the talking.

To add to this: it is the police's job to positively identify those who commit crimes. If they are questioning you, it is because 1) they are investigating a crime and you are a suspect (maybe not the prime suspect but a suspect) and 2) they do not have evidence that reasonably proves that you committed whatever crime (or lack thereof) they are investigating. (Simple game theory for 2: if they had the evidence, they'…

This x 1000.

A friend was a career LAPD detective, and he gave me the talk. He said because I’m a nice guy I might try to help the police by explaining what I saw in detail. He was adamant that I never ever do that, because in the absence of someone to pin it on, they would find a way to pin it on me. He saw it as literally their job.

No matter what, even if you are just standing there when something happens, don’t talk to the police.

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#103

Post by AdrianB1 »

reverendsteveii wrote: post #35
mjd wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>since they now know (or should know) but can you hold them to that in any manner or does each officer need to be told officially and continue to plead ignorance of the law until they are in some documented way informed of it? can you plead ignorance of the law if you know it's not legal to dump all traffic from a cell phone tower but no one said that it's not legal to dump all the traffic from a web server (assuming…

>> Does declaring this illegal actually do anything to protect the rights of people

Yes, next time they do it the data cannot be used in court as it was already declared anti-constitutional by that Circuit and good faith argument cannot be used. Good faith and not knowing the law are different; good faith can be used when the law is not clear enough and there was no rule to clarify.

It happens very often with 2A restrictions that are overturned by courts, but they are in effect for years and when they are repelled by courts then similar laws are passed just to be repelled years later, but during all the years there is an anti-constitutional law in place with prohibitions. So police cannot do cell searches, but local governments can enact anti-constitutional laws with intention and wipe rights successfully, for example laws that mandates telecom companies to provide the data to the police.

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#104

Post by EFreethought »

autoexec wrote: post #90
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To add to this: it is the police's job to positively identify those who commit crimes. If they are questioning you, it is because 1) they are investigating a crime and you are a suspect (maybe not the prime suspect but a suspect) and 2) they do not have evidence that reasonably proves that you committed whatever crime (or lack thereof) they are investigating. (Simple game theory for 2: if they had the evidence, they'…

> The police are asking you questions to "get to the bottom of it" and they encounter people every day who do think they can lie to get out of a crime; I don't even think they are all that interested in getting to the truth of the matter, they are mostly concerned with getting an arrest and conviction. If it'll be easier to throw you behind bars than to find and arrest the dangerous person who actually committed the…

I wonder how much of the state of affairs is due to the "enshitification" of law enforcement. I think a lot of towns/cities require officers to give out a minimum number of citations/tickets per month.

If you are told to care about a number, you will care about a number.

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#105

Post by rabite »

_DeadFred_ wrote: post #66
mjd wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Fourth Amendment was violated by the magistrate judge who issued the illegal warrant, not by the police officers who, acting in in good faith, executed it.

If my lawyer tells me selling a specific analog version of fentanyl is legal because it's different enough/whatever, and I good faith sell an analog version of fentanyl, do I get a good faith exemption?

[dead]

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#106

Post by underdeserver »

some-guy wrote: post #54
Terr_ wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only that, when they lie in conversations/interrogations, they can lie about what the law is , as well as what official acts can/will undertake. To me there is a fundamental difference between lies like: 1. "Your buddy in the next room already ratted you out." 2. "Sign this admission and you'll only get 6 months, tops. If you don't, we can seize your house and your mother will be living on the streets. "

When I was a child, I thought police had to go to law school. How else would you enforce the law if you didn't know what the law was?

We all have to go to law school.

How could you live in the world without breaking the law if you didn't know what the law was?

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#107

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

EFreethought wrote: post #104
autoexec wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The police are asking you questions to "get to the bottom of it" and they encounter people every day who do think they can lie to get out of a crime; I don't even think they are all that interested in getting to the truth of the matter, they are mostly concerned with getting an arrest and conviction. If it'll be easier to throw you behind bars than to find and arrest the dangerous person who actually committed the…

I wonder how much of the state of affairs is due to the "enshitification" of law enforcement. I think a lot of towns/cities require officers to give out a minimum number of citations/tickets per month. If you are told to care about a number, you will care about a number.

Those numbers influence promotions/raises. It is probable that higher-paid cops commit more civil rights violations than lower-paid by virtue of them being more likely by comparison to have undue arrests and convictions on their record (and ~equally likely to encounter actual criminal behavior).

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#108

Post by anon6362 »

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…

US police, in effect, are a lawless, violent, honorless, untouchable, mafia who protect and serve primarily a landed aristocracy. In some ultra-exclusive communities, city police are literally reduced to Dashers and grocery getters. Similar venues and communities in the States also pay for hybrid PMC/LE QRFs who roll with battle rattle more than body armor and long guns.

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#109

Post by Loughla »

testing22321 wrote: post #101
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To add to this: it is the police's job to positively identify those who commit crimes. If they are questioning you, it is because 1) they are investigating a crime and you are a suspect (maybe not the prime suspect but a suspect) and 2) they do not have evidence that reasonably proves that you committed whatever crime (or lack thereof) they are investigating. (Simple game theory for 2: if they had the evidence, they'…

This x 1000. A friend was a career LAPD detective, and he gave me the talk. He said because I’m a nice guy I might try to help the police by explaining what I saw in detail. He was adamant that I never ever do that, because in the absence of someone to pin it on, they would find a way to pin it on me. He saw it as literally their job. No matter what, even if you are just standing there when something happens, don’t t…

I've told this story on here before. When I was 16 or 17, the place I was working got robbed. The guy just opened the register while I was fixing part of the greenhouse building.

The police showed up and took my statement, in which I said I didn't hear a car, so I assume he just ran off.

They took me in about two weeks later for an official statement. Then told me I had to take a polygraph because my stories didn't match. The story didn't change. The officer at the scene wrote that I said I saw the guy run off.

I was shitting bricks. A cop friend of my parents told me that this was common. They didn't have a suspect, I was a young kid, so they were just trying to get me to admit to it. He said they would tell me I failed the polygraph test and to just come clean.

That's what they did. They tried to pin it on me, but I legit didn't do it, so I would never confess. Even after they tried the 'you'll only get probation of you confess now, but if this goes to trial you'll be tried as an adult' nonsense.

And that's the story of how I learned to never, ever, ever speak to a police officer without legal counsel, even if you're straight up the victim in the situation.

What a fucking mess this country is in terms of policing.

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#110

Post by equinoxnemesis »

autoexec wrote: post #93
mjd wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. In 2020 the police went to a magistrate judge to ask for a warrant. The judge issued the warrant. Five years later, another judge has determined that the warrant should not have been issued in the first place. That is not the fault of the police, and there is no reason to punish them for it.

Really we should be punishing the judge who approved it in the first place. A judge that violates the rights of the people shouldn't be allowed to be a judge.

There is obviously a line between what is and is not a permissible search somewhere and it's virtually inevitable that judicial rulings will from time to time err on both sides of that line (and they do). Punishing judges for ruling in ways which are later overturned would destroy rule of law at a fundamental level.
Post reply on HN