4 ms·

"If you were investigating a crime, you're in law enforcement." False. Defense attorneys and their investigators also investigate crimes. This realization show

"If you were investigating a crime, you're in law enforcement." False. Defense attorneys and their investigators also investigate crimes. This realization shows why the broadening the warrant requirement can have perverse outcomes. Say you are defending a man accused of rape due to lack of consent. Let's also say that this is a false accusation that can be proven false because the accuser uploaded a video of the events which show consent to her Facebook account. Let's further say that the defense really wants access to this video. If a warrant is required, the defense can NEVER get it because there is no way under the law the defense can get a warrant (unlike a subpoena or court order). Think about that for a minute. Everything that requires a warrant cannot be accessed by the defense, regardless of what is at stake (which is always life and liberty). Period. PS: I'm not suggesting rape accusations are usually false. Just an example to illustrate the downside of a broad warrant requirement from someone who defends accused people.

taejo 11y ago
The comment you're responding to said > I would be obliged to follow the laws about giving away data, so I would find out exactly what my legal obligation is, and follow that as best I could. Of course, the law requires people to obey subpoenas as well as warrants, as the commenter would find out if they did what they said. The point is to follow due process, not that everyone has to become a lawyer and learn the fine distinctions between different types of writ.
- dtrizzle 11y ago
  I agree with you. My comment was more of a commentary on the unintended consequences of this: http://www.wired.com/2013/01/google-says-get-a-warrant/ http://www.wired.com/2013/01/google-says-get-a-warrant/ On HN and most places on the internet, most people support the warrant requirement for most or all digital data. I do too, in a sense, as I believe law enforcement shouldn't have unfettered access to a person digital info. However, as a defense attorney, I've learned that a consequence of the warrant requirement is that the defense has no legal way access to digital information during a defense investigation. In effect, a warrant requirement for digital materials means only law enforcement and prosecutors can access them. However, an accused person's attorney cannot.

taejo 11y ago

The comment you're responding to said > I would be obliged to follow the laws about giving away data, so I would find out exactly what my legal obligation is, and follow that as best I could. Of course, the law requires people to obey subpoenas as well as warrants, as the commenter would find out if they did what they said. The point is to follow due process, not that everyone has to become a lawyer and learn the fine distinctions between different types of writ.

dtrizzle 11y ago
I agree with you. My comment was more of a commentary on the unintended consequences of this: http://www.wired.com/2013/01/google-says-get-a-warrant/ http://www.wired.com/2013/01/google-says-get-a-warrant/ On HN and most places on the internet, most people support the warrant requirement for most or all digital data. I do too, in a sense, as I believe law enforcement shouldn't have unfettered access to a person digital info. However, as a defense attorney, I've learned that a consequence of the warrant requirement is that the defense has no legal way access to digital information during a defense investigation. In effect, a warrant requirement for digital materials means only law enforcement and prosecutors can access them. However, an accused person's attorney cannot.