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

181–190 of 208 posts

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#181

Post by AngryData »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #59
ty6853 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It apparently doesn't in one of the areas of which I have a high level interest. The ATF is constantly changing their mind on what a machine gun is, and if it is one, it is a strict liability crime. Not long ago a guy was put in jail for creating business-card sized metal sheets with the image of a 'lightning link' (machinegun conversion device) on it. Not the actual device, just a picture of it etched Up until the g…

Meanwhile, you can use bump-stocks as a redneck machine gun all day long.

Bumpstocks are a worthless gimmick, you can bump fire 99.9% of semi-auto guns with zero modifications or special stocks.

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#182

Post by RHSeeger »

AStonesThrow wrote: post #149
RHSeeger wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is it written that, if a judge tells a police officer they can do something, they are legally allowed to do it, no matter how blatantly illegal it is? I'm open to being corrected, but I have a hard time believing that, if a judge told a officer they have permission to go out an summarily execute 40 random people in the mall, it would be legal for the officer to do so. And once _anything_ can be illegal even if…

Who commands the police officer to do things? Is it his/her superior, or the judge directly? If there is a chain of command in any police department or Sheriff's Office, then the judge is not going to jump that chain and interpose herself in giving orders to a lowest-level officer who is on-the-ground and doing things. The order's going to go to the office of their commander, who's going to evaluate it, and then it'l…

I think there's a disconnect in the way we're looking at this. It seems like you feel the person who told the officers to "go do this" is at fault, and anyone who did isn't. I feel strongly that both are at fault. If a mob boss orders a murder and a hitman carries it out, they're both at fault. Same deal here.

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#183

Post by dan-robertson »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #19
ty6853 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I believe, in good faith, I have not broken the law. I should not be convicted.

> If I believe, in good faith, I have not broken the law. I should not be convicted How often does this actually happen in criminal matters?

I have this vague impression that a certain amount of intent, but (a) I think it’s more about intending to do the bad thing than knowing that the bad thing is illegal, and (b) this is all very vague so I could be totally wrong.

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#184

Post by djrj477dhsnv »

darawk wrote: post #170
djrj477dhsnv wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a point: protecting the accused against unconstitutional searches. That certainly seems important. Whether the police violated the constitution in good faith or not is irrelevant when it comes to the rights of the accused.

There's no point in protecting one individual against an unconstitutional search that proves him guilty. The constitutional issue is the ability to have conducted the search in the first place. The only reason we suppress accurate, but unconstitutionally obtained evidence is to disincentivize the action in the future. This "good-faith exception" strikes that balance pretty ideally. The defendants rights were violated…

What you're saying would be true if the law were black and white, but in reality there are countless grey areas.

In those cases, suppressing the evidence would go a long way to disincentivize actions the police know are likely unconstitutional but there's enough uncertainty for plausible deniability.

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#185

Post by genevra »

darawk wrote: post #170
djrj477dhsnv wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a point: protecting the accused against unconstitutional searches. That certainly seems important. Whether the police violated the constitution in good faith or not is irrelevant when it comes to the rights of the accused.

There's no point in protecting one individual against an unconstitutional search that proves him guilty. The constitutional issue is the ability to have conducted the search in the first place. The only reason we suppress accurate, but unconstitutionally obtained evidence is to disincentivize the action in the future. This "good-faith exception" strikes that balance pretty ideally. The defendants rights were violated…

"Police now know they cannot use this method in the future"

I wish I had as much confidence in a finger wag as you do but unfortunately I think it'll work more like Pavlov.

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#186

Post by AStonesThrow »

RHSeeger wrote: post #182
AStonesThrow wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who commands the police officer to do things? Is it his/her superior, or the judge directly? If there is a chain of command in any police department or Sheriff's Office, then the judge is not going to jump that chain and interpose herself in giving orders to a lowest-level officer who is on-the-ground and doing things. The order's going to go to the office of their commander, who's going to evaluate it, and then it'l…

I think there's a disconnect in the way we're looking at this. It seems like you feel the person who told the officers to "go do this" is at fault, and anyone who did isn't. I feel strongly that both are at fault. If a mob boss orders a murder and a hitman carries it out, they're both at fault. Same deal here.

“You feel”? Who is “you”? Are you referring to me? I have no feelings or judgement on any particular case. I have no facts about them. I don’t care because I am not involved and I am not in authority.

Please do not ascribe judgements to me that I am not making. I was simply asking questions to clarify a typical process that may be hypothetically followed. Thank you.

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#187

Post by const_cast »

gosub100 wrote: post #113
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?

PDs have attorneys on call and prior to that they can call their sergeant if they are unsure. Even real lawyers don't know every aspect of every law on the books. 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.

It's not that people hate police, it's that the police have zero accountability and that, over time, has lead to a culture where they can do whatever they want, whenever they want. The police are rife with systemic abuse and even a HINT of "oh maybe we should be looking into this" is met with "back the blue" type people crawling of the woodwork to explain how qualified immunity is good, actually, and we don't want good ole boys going to prison for things as trivial as state-sanctioned murder.

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#188

Post by const_cast »

mjd wrote: post #36
reverendsteveii wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Horseshit. This isn't a criminal conviction, the standard of mens rea doesn't and shouldn't apply. To add a good faith loophole only incentivizes two things: purposeful ignorance and lying.

Learn to tell the difference between "I don't like it" and "horseshit". The legal precedent for this goes back decades, and it's been argued by many people better-informed than you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good-faith_exception

He doesn't like it, and it's also horseshit.

The problem here is that the police ALREADY have systems upon systems upon systems in place to ensure they never have to take accountability, ever. Police _literally_ get away with murder, but more importantly, they routinely get away with lesser offenses.

I mean, if we can't even charge someone like Chauvin without first burning down a few cities, could you just imagine how many clerical errors get swept under the rug? How much false evidence is floating around? How many innocent people are behind bars?

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#189

Post by const_cast »

mjd wrote: post #38
flipnotyk wrote: post #4

"It's unconstitutional and illegal, but you're not being held accountable and you can still use the data." Yeah that tracks.

It is not reasonable to hold someone accountable for doing something illegal in 2020 that was only determined to be illegal in 2025. The police officers applied to a judge for a warrant. The judge gave them the warrant. Now another judge says that the warrant should not have been issued in the first place. How is that the police's fault? How would you hold them accountable?

Sure, if the thing in question were someone being tried with a crime.

Rather, it's the opposite. It's not "punishing" police to say "hey, you can't use this evidence". That's not a punishment for them, they shouldn't personally be offended by that. And we certainly shouldn't be comparing that outcome to as if the police are being put behind bars.

We shouldn't be putting people behind bars with bad evidence just because we didn't know it was bad when we got it. No, we should retroactively say "hey, we can't use that evidence". If that hurts the police's fee fees I don't think that should come into play. I don't think that's a metric we should be optimizing for.

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#190

Post by ein0p »

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.

Literally too smart to be regime muscle.
Post reply on HN