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

21–30 of 208 posts

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#21

Post by __loam »

ty6853 wrote: post #15
mjd wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rule that illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible exists to disincentivize the police from obtaining evidence illegally. But if the police believed, in good faith, that a particular search was legal and reasonable, based on the fact that a judge authorized them to perform it, then excluding the resulting evidence doesn't serve that purpose. Update : This is not a new thing. The good-faith exception has been i…

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

This is a weird concept to people in stem fields, but in law intent matters a lot. It's the difference between manslaughter and murder.

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#22

Post by wutwutwat »

ceejayoz wrote: post #11
wutwutwat wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who does the court work for? The government. Who do the police work for? The government. Yeah yeah, they work for “the people” “the tax payer” whatever. They work for the government. They get their paychecks from the same place. What are you expecting here? This isn’t equal.

There's a very good chance the cops in question do not work for the Federal government. They certainly don't work for the judicial branch. It isn't a perfect setup, but it's better than many.

They all get paid from my pay check. They work for the government. Level doesn’t matter. They protect their own.

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#23

Post by ceejayoz »

mjd wrote: post #17
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.

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 police did not commit a crime here.

They did, however, violate the Fourth Amendment. Per the court.

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#24

Post by mjd »

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?

It's a perfectly reasonable defense to a charge of mail fraud, for example.

Or employing illegal aliens. "But they told me they had work visas, and they showed me what later turned out to be expertly-counterfeited visas!" Why shouldn't that get you off the hook, if true?

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#25

Post by nemomarx »

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. "

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

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#26

Post by plsbenice34 »

mjd wrote: post #13
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…

The rule that illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible exists to disincentivize the police from obtaining evidence illegally. But if the police believed, in good faith, that a particular search was legal and reasonable, based on the fact that a judge authorized them to perform it, then excluding the resulting evidence doesn't serve that purpose. Update : This is not a new thing. The good-faith exception has been i…

Excluding the evidence would incentivize police to stop choosing the most convenient interpretation of the law. They should have to try to make the most accurate interpretation, which means punishment when they are wrong. Just like for everyone else

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#27

Post by JumpCrisscross »

wutwutwat wrote: post #22
ceejayoz wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a very good chance the cops in question do not work for the Federal government. They certainly don't work for the judicial branch. It isn't a perfect setup, but it's better than many.

They all get paid from my pay check. They work for the government. Level doesn’t matter. They protect their own.

> Level doesn’t matter

This level of civic and legal ignorance is a large part of why our country is in the mess that it is.

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#28

Post by ty6853 »

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?

Jeremy Kettler -- bought a silencer completely made and sold within his state (no interstate commerce) and believed based on the Kansas Second Amendment Act (I think that was the name) which legalized intrastate NFA items that it was 100% legal. His own state representatives had advertised to their constituents that the law exempted silencers that never crossed state boundaries. The buyer and seller did it openly and even had photos on facebook, seemingly totally oblivious this would actually still touch federal law / interstate commerce.

Cody Wilson -- Went to a sugar daddy website that verifies IDs to ensure all 'escorts' are 18 which is a pretty good faith way to do it IMO. Woman seemingly had fake ID at some point, and also lied and turned out to be like 16 or 17. At some point later she underwent counseling at school and admitted she was an escort, after which a criminal investigation happened and Mr. Wilson was arrested. As a strict liability crime, there was no defense that due diligence was done to ensure the escort was 18.

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#29

Post by thatguymike »

If this holds, can cops still ask for whether a specific phone number was present on a cell tower at a certain time? I can't tell if it's the breadth of the data collection that's unconsitutional because it catches lots of innocent people's data; or if it's the concept of using cell towers altogether.

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#30

Post by p_ing »

nemomarx wrote: post #25
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. "

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.

Post reply on HN