Our governments now investigate people, not crimes. This turning point is undeniably catastrophic.
Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches
101–110 of 113 posts
Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
Attorney here. DannyBee is absolutely correct. To my knowledge, data on a computer would be handled like an offender's diary, and that is certainly admissible in court, assuming authentication that the diary was actually written by the offender. Data is interesting because authentication can arguable be harder to prove. (handwriting is pretty easy to attribute) The truth is, the founding fathers likely could not have…
>Attorney here. So am I, though not a criminal one :) >The truth is, the founding fathers likely could not have imagined in their wildest dreams that we could have all of human history on a flash drive with us at all times. Trying to apply "how they would have thought" or "WWFFD" to every new technology is kind of insane. While entirely true, i think, given the history around the fifth amendment, it would be quite a…
Sweet. I had to jump off last night, but I did some criminal appointments in both federal and state court to get some courtroom experience while fresh out of law school. Certainly not an expert, but capable of having a fairly deep discussion on search & seizure.
I completely agree with what you wrote above about how just because folks like you or I say "oh, this is/isn't legal" doesn't mean we agree with it.
Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
Attorney here. The search incident to lawful arrest doctrine is rooted in officer safety. Specifically, the Court says officers should have the ability to look for guns and contraband when someone is pulled over and it's likely they are armed or their immediate person or vicinity poses a threat and/or has evidence of a crime. The courts have decided that any drug suspicion means they are likely to have a weapon, whic…
Not an attorney here. The case we're talking about was search after arrest. If immunity [to a warrantless search] is to be conceived of as a rule, there is one exception that has been established as firmly as the rule itself. The government may search the person of the accused when legally arrested to discover and seize the fruit or evidences of crime. also (cited in Harris v US): The right without a search warrant c…
I said rooted in officer safety, not solely because, ;-).
Even if the search happens AFTER the arrest (assuming it's lawful, without that there is no internal link to a legal search), the court is still going to look at whether the seized item was taken incident to the arrest. That's why trunk's can't be searched unless there is a "particularized" reason, i.e. drugs, contraband, other evidence of the specific crime for which the offender was arrested for.
Under that line of reasoning, it's pretty likely courts would be ok with thumbing through the offender's call history to find other possible offenders for the related crime.
Not saying it's right, but that's how the law is evolving on evidence collection. Truth is, we need much deeper analysis on the technology at hand, but our courts are OLDDDDDDDD. Not saying octogenarians can't make effective re: technology, but it certainly hasn't bore out that way yet.
Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
I substitute "lesser of two evils" with "neither of two evils" but it ends at the same place. I believe any rational actor would behave as Bush and Obama have during their terms in office. For this reason I can't justify voting for a third party candidate, either, because I still believe they'd act similarly, and with less inherent power, they'd be more easily swayed into acting irrationally (being president helps a…
> I believe any rational actor would behave as Bush and Obama have during their terms in office. Citations needed. Politicians have had widely varying behavior in the past. It depends on what the climate created by the citizenry is.
I need to cite my beliefs now?
Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I believe any rational actor would behave as Bush and Obama have during their terms in office. Citations needed. Politicians have had widely varying behavior in the past. It depends on what the climate created by the citizenry is.
I need to cite my beliefs now?
In a discussion, yes, you need to support them --either with citations and references or with your own argumentation.
Else it's just a random statement. I believe X. Why would anyone care about my belief?
Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
I need to cite my beliefs now?
In a discussion, yes, you need to support them --either with citations and references or with your own argumentation. Else it's just a random statement. I believe X. Why would anyone care about my belief?
My supporting argument is that every president, every leader of every nation in the entire world from as long as nations have existed have behaved, in this specific regard, exactly the same. There is never, in the history of humanity, an example of a leader who did not have a clandestine intelligence-gathering arm of his or her government.
Furthermore, there has never been a leader of the US who has been able to avoid killing people through military action. Every president in the history of the US has blood on his hands. Arguably, every leader of every country does as well. From Nelson Mandella to Stalin, to Churchill to Sulla, from Nefertiti to William Wallace - all leaders kill people, spy on people, and break their country's laws.
What reason would I have to believe a third party candidate could buck literally thousands of years of corruption, privacy violations and death? It's in the damned job description - leading is immoral, regardless of what party affiliation the leader carries.
So would literally every action taken by Bush or Obama be repeated? No. But you can be damn sure that the things we all have huge problems with would be, by any human being on the planet put into the positions they were put into. They're acting rationally, given the information they've got.
Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
>is there a realistic scenario where an independent candidate could get elected in the United States? Do you know about the 5% funding rule in the US? Why not vote for a third party?
I did not know about this! I assume you mean this: http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml Interesting, but it comes with a bunch of conditions (these are for 2008): - General election spending limited to $84.1 million - Primary spending limited to $42.05 million Quick google search revealed that in 2008, the dem/con candidate spent almost $1B each: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aeri…
It would make it easier to get into debates.
Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
Attorney here. DannyBee is absolutely correct. To my knowledge, data on a computer would be handled like an offender's diary, and that is certainly admissible in court, assuming authentication that the diary was actually written by the offender. Data is interesting because authentication can arguable be harder to prove. (handwriting is pretty easy to attribute) The truth is, the founding fathers likely could not have…
Could you explain the history of the 5th ammendmment in this context? I understand from some light Wikipedia reading that it was originally around mostly to prevent tortured confessions. Why is it still relevant at all?
ummm, waterboarding?
Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a discussion, yes, you need to support them --either with citations and references or with your own argumentation. Else it's just a random statement. I believe X. Why would anyone care about my belief?
My supporting argument is that every president, every leader of every nation in the entire world from as long as nations have existed have behaved, in this specific regard, exactly the same. There is never, in the history of humanity, an example of a leader who did not have a clandestine intelligence-gathering arm of his or her government. Furthermore, there has never been a leader of the US who has been able to avoi…
That's too generic and blanket a statement. And historically false -- not "every leader" has done those things.
But even if he did, not "every leader" has done those things to the same extent, to the same kind of people, and for the same reasons.
Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
My supporting argument is that every president, every leader of every nation in the entire world from as long as nations have existed have behaved, in this specific regard, exactly the same. There is never, in the history of humanity, an example of a leader who did not have a clandestine intelligence-gathering arm of his or her government. Furthermore, there has never been a leader of the US who has been able to avoi…
That's too generic and blanket a statement. And historically false -- not "every leader" has done those things. But even if he did, not "every leader" has done those things to the same extent, to the same kind of people, and for the same reasons.
You're not presenting much of a counter argument. "Nuh uh!" isn't really addressable.
You asked for an explanation, I gave you one. I'm uninterested in talking with you specifically any further, so that's basically as far as we're going to go.