So the warrant is forbidden - could the police just ask nicely for the data and have telcos provide it?
Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional
31–40 of 208 posts
Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional
#32> 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…
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.
Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional
#33> 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 dont see the difference, both should be illegal
Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
The SAFA case is complicated, granted, and rare; it reached the appellate circuit for a reason.
CSAM and child sexual assault are one of the few areas of criminal law where we confer (in my opinion, correctly) absolute liability.
Broadly speaking, I think more cops have been convicted of duty-related crimes than unsuspecting random convicted of and punished for a crime they didn’t know they committed.
Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional
#35Do law schools even bother teaching about "fruit of the poisoned tree" anymore? It's clearly a dead letter; this is yet another ruling that if you gather evidence illegally you'll get a finger-wag but allowed to proceed as usual. Why even have a notion of legality of evidence if it doesn't matter?
The purpose of the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine is to disincentivize illegal collection of evidence. But there has always been a good-faith exception to it: if the police genuinely believed that what they were doing was legal, as they did in this case, relying on established legal precedent, then throwing out the evidence doesn't disincentivize anything. But the declaration that cell tower dumps are illegal…
>since they now know (or should know)
but can you hold them to that in any manner or does each officer need to be told officially and continue to plead ignorance of the law until they are in some documented way informed of it? can you plead ignorance of the law if you know it's not legal to dump all traffic from a cell phone tower but no one said that it's not legal to dump all the traffic from a web server (assuming for the sake of argument the obv interpretation that this ruling applies to all data stores that contain data from multiple people)? Every time you need to violate the constitution can you just have the new guy do it? Does declaring this illegal actually do anything to protect the rights of people who did nothing wrong and had their data seized and pored over by police anyway?
Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional
#36Earlier 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…
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.
Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional
#37> 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. "
Never talk to the police. Let your lawyers do the talking.
Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional
#38"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?
Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional
#39Earlier 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…
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
No. In 2020 the police went to a magistrate judge to ask for a warrant. The judge issued the warrant. Five years later, another judge has determined that the warrant should not have been issued in the first place.
That is not the fault of the police, and there is no reason to punish them for it.
Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional
#40Paywall free link: https://www.courtwatch.news/p/judge-rules-blanket-search-of-...