3 ms·
It was a missing girl, not a random stolen phone. Yes I'd absolutely be willing to risk inconveniencing one person to save a kidnapped girl. The 50% number was
by Houshalter 11y ago
It was a missing girl, not a random stolen phone. Yes I'd absolutely be willing to risk inconveniencing one person to save a kidnapped girl.
The 50% number was made up anyway, it's likely higher than that. GPS especially is pretty accurate, and these tracking systems probably use it when available.
For a single stolen phone, probably not. Though you can still go to their house and then call the phone right as they answer the door. If you hear ringing then that's probable cause.
- darklajid 11y agoThink of the children? Either a location is enough for the police to search your place or it is not. Don't pull the kidnapped big eyed little girl card, please.
- Houshalter 11y agoWhat are you talking about? The standards should definitely be lower for missing children. Finding your missing phone is a lot less important than finding a kidnapped girl. Are you really saying the police shouldn't have been allowed to do that search?
- darklajid 11y agoI'm saying that the same indicator ("location service claims this is the spot") should have the same result (probable cause?). If crime1 w/ probable cause means you enter the building and crime2 w/ probable cause means you enter the building then there's no reason to bring up tiny girls or puppies.
- Houshalter 11y agoYour argument works equally well against you. Most people agree the search is justified if it's a missing girl, therefore it should also be justified for any trivial crime as well. But obviously there is a difference between trivial crimes and kidnappings. Inconveniencing a few people to save a life is acceptable. The expected utility is positive. It likely is not for more trivial crimes.