111–120 of 208 posts
https://nclalegal.org/press_release/ncla-asks-supreme-court-...
I blogged about this some time ago: https://ccleve.com/p/a-privacy-amendment
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you believe in good faith that you have not broken the law, and can reasonably convince a jury of that, you almost certainly will receive a lighter sentence than you would have otherwise Juries usually don't decide sentencing, and even if they did I don't think that would matter with crimes viewed as wrong in themselves ( mala in se ) though it might with crimes viewed as wrong because they are prohibited ( mala…
Well there's also the case that a main component in having your sentence reduced is expressing genuine remorse. I'm not sure how on earth someone could be remorseful for a mala prohibitum victimless offense while simultaneously maintaining they in good faith thought they were following the law. Any expression of those two views simultaneously would in practice be seen as not much more than "sorry I got caught -- doin…
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?
What baffles me is the hypocrisy in the political party that wants more government and regulation is the same one that hates the men who enforce it.
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. "
Never talk to the police. Let your lawyers do the talking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Not where people's most fundamental rights are concerned. What it would do is cause judges to err on the side of caution before making a ruling that would violate the constitution which is exactly what we want judges to do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That is not the fault of the police, and there is no reason to punish them for it. It's not punishing the police. It's not allowing them to use evidence that they shouldn't have been allowed to gather. Fining them, firing them, and/or jailing them for breaking the law; those would be ways of punishing them. That's not what is being discussed here. Admittedly, we pretty much _never_ punish police no matter what they…
They were allowed to gather the evidence - they had a warrant from a judge. The judge erred, not the police.
At the moment, I would believe they were both wrong, and that the officer broke the law. I _think_ the judge also broke the law, but I don't know exactly how that works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They were allowed to gather the evidence - they had a warrant from a judge. The judge erred, not the police.
But the point is justice for the people put through curt. It does not matter to them whose mistake it was.
I expect anyone that was convicted due to this dragnet would now be able to appeal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The judge erred in granting the warrant, the police violated the above statute. Them being unaware would be an affirmative defense, that does require admission of the above crime.
"It's unconstitutional and illegal, but you're not being held accountable and you can still use the data." Yeah that tracks.
what's the difference between eyewitnesses reporting their recollections of EMF data gathered by their eyes, a surveillance camera collecting and recording EMF data, and a cell tower collecting and recording EMF data? In the case of the cell tower, the suspect is always carrying a "flashlight", but in the other cases he may be.
because the law is not a math equation and context matters.
police investigating canvas for witnesses, canvas for ring doorbells cams, and ... canvas for cell towers.
identical, not analogous.