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

151–160 of 208 posts

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#151

Post by Retric »

deepsun wrote: post #130
p_ing wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tax payers don't care enough to force the congress critters to change the laws in . Instead, you get human beings who are shielded by a thin piece of paper who can summarily execute you, then say "whoops, my bad". Police are nothing more than State-sponsored gang members.

State (any country, since the birth of monarchies) is the gang. It literally robs you ("taxes"), monopolized violence (only state is allowed to utilize it). But if it does a poor job at that, other states swoop in with their rules, no invitation needed.

Cops are sufficiently independent to be a separate entity here.

Under civil asset forfeiture they are literally allowed to go out and rob people independent of what any taxes might be.

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#152

Post by LiamPowell »

mjd wrote: post #5

It took me a while to track down the actual opinion. The case, United States v Spurlock , is 3:23-cr-00022 in the Nevada federal district. The opinion itself is ECF document #370, and I have hosted a copy at https://plover.com/~mjd/misc/cell-tower-dump-opinion.pdf in case other people are interested.

They've clearly read this to write this article. I don't understand why they don't at the very least reference it, even if they don't provide a direct link.

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#153

Post by heavyset_go »

_DeadFred_ wrote: post #133
lucb1e wrote: 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…

Just curious, what case are you referencing?

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#154

Post by voxic11 »

Terr_ wrote: post #6
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…

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. "

They can't do 2. Or at least it would make the confession inadmissible evidence. The case law for this goes back more than a century. The general rule is that the police cannot promise you anything in return for a confession.

> Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532 (1897), was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that an alleged confession to a crime, in order to be admissible, must not be obtained by threats or violence, nor by any direct or implied promises, however slight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bram_v._United_States

The ruling was later applied to the states as well in Malloy v. Hogan

> The Court held that the Fifth Amendment's exception from compulsory self-incrimination is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgement by a state. When determining if state officers properly obtained a confession, one must focus on whether the statements were made freely and voluntarily without any direct or implied promises or improper influence.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/110

The "you will get X years instead of Y years" has repeatedly been found to make testimony inadmissible. You might be confusing it with plea bargains which are legal but don't involve the police and are actually binding agreements. The prosecutor cannot lie to you about what you will receive in return for your cooperation.

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#155

Post by decimalenough »

voxic11 wrote: post #154
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. "

They can't do 2. Or at least it would make the confession inadmissible evidence. The case law for this goes back more than a century. The general rule is that the police cannot promise you anything in return for a confession. > Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532 (1897), was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that an alleged confession to a crime, in order to be admissible, must not be obtained by threats…

> The general rule is that the police cannot promise you anything in return for a confession.

Yet plea bargaining is basically a promise in exchange for a confession (guilty plea), and that's why it's not allowed basically anywhere except the US.

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#156

Post by oivey »

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.

Enshitification would imply they were ever good. Police brutality has been a constant throughout US history, particularly against minorities, among many other things.

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#157

Post by bryanrasmussen »

decimalenough wrote: post #155
voxic11 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can't do 2. Or at least it would make the confession inadmissible evidence. The case law for this goes back more than a century. The general rule is that the police cannot promise you anything in return for a confession. > Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532 (1897), was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that an alleged confession to a crime, in order to be admissible, must not be obtained by threats…

> The general rule is that the police cannot promise you anything in return for a confession. Yet plea bargaining is basically a promise in exchange for a confession (guilty plea), and that's why it's not allowed basically anywhere except the US.

plea bargaining in the U.S also is a promise that they will recommend that you get a particular deal, but the judge in sentencing can decide not to take that deal.

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#158

Post by bryanrasmussen »

redeux wrote: post #96
some-guy wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I took a class in college from a lawyer who said he started as a cop but wanted to understand the law better so he went to law school at night. When he graduated the chief (or whatever) told him he couldn’t practice law and be a cop, and even though he had no intention of actually being an attorney, they let him go.

maybe related https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/st...

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#159

Post by duskwuff »

p_ing wrote: post #30
nemomarx wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get your point but actually why can they lie and claim your buddy ratted you out?

Tax payers don't care enough to force the congress critters to change the laws in . Instead, you get human beings who are shielded by a thin piece of paper who can summarily execute you, then say "whoops, my bad". Police are nothing more than State-sponsored gang members.

> Police are nothing more than State-sponsored gang members.

Sometimes very literally:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangs_in_the_Los_Angeles_Count...

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#160

Post by qingcharles »

decimalenough wrote: post #155
voxic11 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can't do 2. Or at least it would make the confession inadmissible evidence. The case law for this goes back more than a century. The general rule is that the police cannot promise you anything in return for a confession. > Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532 (1897), was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that an alleged confession to a crime, in order to be admissible, must not be obtained by threats…

> The general rule is that the police cannot promise you anything in return for a confession. Yet plea bargaining is basically a promise in exchange for a confession (guilty plea), and that's why it's not allowed basically anywhere except the US.

In Illinois I noticed they modified the template admonitions they read to the defendant during a guilty plea to say something like "has anyone promised you anything, except for this plea agreement?"
Post reply on HN