3 ms·
> But how would I refute the "Federal judges warrant rejection rates are very low because the law enforcement doesn't want to present questionable warrants in t
by ngdndvvcx 10y ago
> But how would I refute the "Federal judges warrant rejection rates are very low because the law enforcement doesn't want to present questionable warrants in the first place" argument?
Even if every LEO is trying their best to avoid filing questionable warrants, they will end up being mistaken far more than 0 out of 48,642 times. What's the point of having this oversight apparatus if they provide no apparent oversight whatsoever?
- Godel_unicode 10y agoSo many things wrong for such a short paragraph: "Reuters writes that the 1,457 requests made last year by the NSA and FBI were all approved" 1,457 < 48,642. > "Even if every LEO..." NSA != LEO. Do you believe their requests were not being made by lawyers with the relevant act open on their other monitor? > "no apparent oversight..." The court's previous rejection rate was .03%. .03% of 1457 is less than 1. IOW, this is the expected outcome even if no greater care was taken to write bullet-proof requests. Also, this: "The memo did reportedly show an marked increase in requests that were modified by the court before approval: 80 applications were changed, as opposed to 19 in 2014"
- awinter-py 10y agonumerical issues aside, consider the paradox of unanimity: http://phys.org/news/2016-01-evidence-bad.html http://phys.org/news/2016-01-evidence-bad.html Regardless of domain, perfect agreement can indicate a problem.
- bobwaycott 10y agoI believe the parent mistook NSLs for warrant requests.