Live data from Hacker News

Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

404media.co

131–140 of 208 posts

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Dude, lay off the bong pipe. > In some ultra-exclusive communities, city police are literally reduced to Dashers and grocery getters Care to name a few?

Not OP, but have you heard the craziness of Indian Creek Village in Miami? [1].

Their police force is 15 for a community of 41 homes[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Creek,_Florida [2] https://www.indiancreekvillagefl.gov/police/police-staff-dir...

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[flagged]

“Not sure, sorry” is more my go to. Nothing illegal or inciting about ignorance and stupidity. And manners cost nothing.

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#133
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Bad analogy but I'll try it: I take it fentanyl is some illegal drug, but some people can legally sell drugs (licensed apothecaries). If they go for a license, get it approved, then sell a drug, and then it turns out the license is invalid due to no fault of their own and should not have been issued, I don't think anyone is surprised if the apothecary is not on the hook for that. But I'm not a lawyer, much less a jud…

Fentanyl is an illegal drug. There is an Analog Acct that makes it so that close analogs to fentanyl are illegal. That was done because people were making analogs and getting away with it.

Drug dealers then went to their lawyers and asked if certain formulations fell under the Analog Act. Their lawyer said no and wrote out how they were legal and didn't fall under the analog act. They sold the drugs and went to prison even though they thought they were in the clear (so good faith should apply, right?).

This is a real case that I have experience with so not sure why I'm being called out as acting in bad faith or making up a ridiculous scenario. This is a real scenario with the people sitting in prison still (for another 5 years).

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There have been many periods in US history where sets of laws were purposefully created that criminalized activities that nearly ~100% of the population engage in. The intent of those isn't to stop those activities, and there's no intent of prosecuting everyone. The intent is to be able to prosecute any individual person or someone close to them, at any arbitrary point in time. Many of today's lawmakers no longer hav…

Yup. Today these are traffic laws (even if you're a pedestrian).

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

“Not sure, sorry” is more my go to. Nothing illegal or inciting about ignorance and stupidity. And manners cost nothing.

What if they can later prove you were sure - maybe from your WhatsApp messages where you told your friend about the crazy shooting?

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#137
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…

read between the lines; this is the Kohberger case.

> the Court will not order any evidence suppressed.

this keeps him from getting off scott free

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#138
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. "

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

Corollary: if talking to the cops helped you then the police wouldn't be so eager to talk to you

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#139

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'…

Couldn't they also be questioning you because 3) you are a witness? What is one to do if they have material information and a vested interest in crimes being solved and getting the right people be held responsible?

Get a lawyer, talk to that lawyer, work with that lawyer to carefully provide that information without putting yourself at risk.

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#140
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bad analogy but I'll try it: I take it fentanyl is some illegal drug, but some people can legally sell drugs (licensed apothecaries). If they go for a license, get it approved, then sell a drug, and then it turns out the license is invalid due to no fault of their own and should not have been issued, I don't think anyone is surprised if the apothecary is not on the hook for that. But I'm not a lawyer, much less a jud…

Fentanyl is an illegal drug. There is an Analog Acct that makes it so that close analogs to fentanyl are illegal. That was done because people were making analogs and getting away with it. Drug dealers then went to their lawyers and asked if certain formulations fell under the Analog Act. Their lawyer said no and wrote out how they were legal and didn't fall under the analog act. They sold the drugs and went to priso…

Right, I see. There's still the difference of having official permission according to the legal system, such as the search warrant being a mechanism codified in law, or the mechanism to get a license as an apothecary to operate a pharmacy

If there is no such license you can apply for, I'm not sure there exists a system by which you can be indemnified from criminal prosecution for doing such sales (or possession or whatever the case may be)

The question reminded me of a 2019 case where two parties went to the judge to get a ruling on something, without there being damages or claims. (Here, a potential buyer and seller could ask to decide whether a certain substance would be legal to sell before the sale happens, steering clear of prosecution until there is a ruling.) Reading that case back, the legal provision that made this possible only applies to situations where the parties are free to do whatever (such as with a contract dispute); it does not work for creating jurisprudence on criminal law. Asking ChatGPT as a quick last attempt, it proposes to ask a lawyer (you've shared how well that worked) or to sue the government over the law that makes the sale illegal which would be void if the judge goes "this substance doesn't fall under that law anyway" and then you've got jurisprudence to work with. The latter sounds a bit strange, not sure if that's actually possible, but it'd be worth exploring for such edge cases where it may or may not be criminal to do a certain thing

Of course, I totally see how this is a double standard: you've done your homework and to the best of everyone's knowledge it's legal, and then when it turns out you're wrong, whether you get sent to prison depends on whether it was the government who sanctioned it. Everyone can make an honest mistake, government or no

I don't know the intentions of the drugs dealers you have experience with. If there are legit purposes for the specific analog they were selling (that is, purposes falling outside of the spirit of the law that makes fentanyl (analogs) illegal) then it seems strange that a judge would send them to prison for years. Was a long prison sentence perhaps compulsory due to some minimum sentence requirement as part of this war on drugs thing? Wondering this since our government is implementing more and more minimum punishments despite research showing this does not deter the behavior and also increases recidivism due to the longer time you spend outside society, losing any position that you had in it. It's great

Post reply on HN