US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections • Hacker News Board

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#251

Post by adastra22 » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 6:42 AM UTC

jojobas wrote: post #248

cvoss wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The effect is going to be on the issuance or not of new warrants going forward in this domain. The police could not have foreseen this ruling. It was not previously known that such warrants were unconstitutional. Now we know. Now judges are not to issue such warrants.

>Now judges are not to issue such warrants. But if they do, the warrants' harvest of evidence will still not be poisoned, because good faith?

There is no good faith protection once the case law is set.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#252

Post by adastra22 » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 6:44 AM UTC

plagiarist wrote: post #157

tsimionescu wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently, the legal understanding is that the Fourth Amendment doesn't guarantee some right that illegally obtained evidence can't be used against you (it merely guarantees that those obtaining the evidence illegally will be punished). The reason why evidence obtained illegally is generally suppressed is to act as a deterrent to the Government. Even if individual officers were willing to risk their own punishment f…

That interpretation is insane to me. If all it takes is, "haha, oops," to use evidence gained from an unconstitutional search, people do not actually have Fourth Amendment rights. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, knowing that civil asset forfeiture is a thing.

“Haha oops” isn’t good faith. You’re making a false equivalence here.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#253

Post by waffleiron » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 7:03 AM UTC

cvoss wrote: post #185

LgWoodenBadger wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Had acted in good faith” Seems like there’s no point in having the constitution if a violation of it has no effect.

The effect is going to be on the issuance or not of new warrants going forward in this domain. The police could not have foreseen this ruling. It was not previously known that such warrants were unconstitutional. Now we know. Now judges are not to issue such warrants.

But why does that never work the same why for the individual that does a (supposed) crime?

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#254

Post by echoangle » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 7:29 AM UTC

tosief wrote: post #215

What is often overloked is how much location data leaks through photo metadata alone. Every photo taken with a phone contains GPS coordinates, timestamps, and device info in the EXIF data. People share photos publicly without realizing they are broadcasting their exact location history. At least with geofence warrants there is a legal process, with photo metadata it is just frely available to anyone who checks.

Most (all?) services people use to share their images strip the metadata. You’re not going to find exif data on WhatsApp, instagram, Snapchat etc

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#255

Post by deepsun » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 7:55 AM UTC

jjk166 wrote: post #160

throwway120385 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For example, if you're sitting in your living room with a bunch of other people, many of whom know each other, and two people start fighting, you are all witnessing a crime and you can also all identify the two people fighting. It would be ridiculous to require DNA evidence in that situation.

At the same time though, a bunch of people who know each other and the people allegedly involved could very easily share the same incorrect testimony. You wouldn't believe in bigfoot if 5 guys drinking beers swore they saw him while they were camping. Sending someone to prison or worse is much higher stakes. DNA evidence might be too extreme, but I'd expect some sort of evidence to back up a testimony. "What if the w…

An old lecture on unreliability of witnesses:

https://youtu.be/GrAME1p2Ijs

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#256

Post by qingcharles » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 8:24 AM UTC

sidewndr46 wrote: post #209

qingcharles wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a judge once tell me that the police absolutely have the right to commit crimes to gather evidence in an investigation. (mostly true -- for instance an officer can generally commit innumerable felonies as long as nothing they do violates your personal constitutional rights -- rarely is evidence thrown out because it was obtained in violation of a statute unless that statute includes a provision for exclusion, e…

The individual who would prosecute them also needs to work with them to prosecute civilians. So pretty much, so long as it isn't murder.

Exactly this.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#257

Post by aaronmdjones » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 9:00 AM UTC

echoangle wrote: post #254

tosief wrote: post #215

What is often overloked is how much location data leaks through photo metadata alone. Every photo taken with a phone contains GPS coordinates, timestamps, and device info in the EXIF data. People share photos publicly without realizing they are broadcasting their exact location history. At least with geofence warrants there is a legal process, with photo metadata it is just frely available to anyone who checks.

Most (all?) services people use to share their images strip the metadata. You’re not going to find exif data on WhatsApp, instagram, Snapchat etc

You can also revoke Location permissions from your Camera app. I've done this.

https://i.postimg.cc/LRd1KbPf/scrot-20260630-085733.png

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#258

Post by TZubiri » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 9:29 AM UTC

willmadden wrote: post #162

TZubiri wrote: post #94

"armed bank robber in Richmond, Virginia. He fled with $195,000. Law enforcement tracked Okello Chatrie down through their use of geofence warrants. Chatrie had opted in to an optional Google “location history” feature that documented his location every few minutes. He was eventually sentenced to 12 years in prison, after pleading guilty." I will never understand how some people look at this stuff and immediately thi…

They think that because governments have a nasty history of killing tens of millions of their own people and need to be restrained.

Does the US have such a history?

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#259

Post by sidewndr46 » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 9:43 AM UTC

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #249

jojobas wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about one person and a rape accusation from 20 years ago?

That's the purpose of statute of limitations.

Didn't many states eliminate or raise those for large categories of violent crimes? This means that a rape today for example could be prosecuted decades from now

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#260

Post by cucumber3732842 » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 9:58 AM UTC

expedition32 wrote: post #233

jjk166 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or perhaps the standards of evidence established for a pre-industrial society when eye-witness testimony was the best that could reasonably be achieved is not necessarily the optimal system for a digital society where everyone carries a high definition video camera in their pocket at all times.

This is why crimes used to have prosecution time limits. Nobody expected eye witness accounts to surface after 40 years. But DNA is eternal.

Prosecution time limits and those pesky rights people have is why so much stuff that would've been simple misdemeanors 70+yr ago is now "administrative" and "civil" law.