5 ms·
State Supreme Court Says Digital Cameras Can't Be Searched Without a Warrant
- bognition 9y agoDoes this mean that passengers on international flights into Logan can no longer have their devices searched at customs?
- mattstreet 9y agoYou don't have rights if you're within 100 miles of the border.
- KGIII 9y agoThat's disingenuous, at best. Yes, the rights to be secure in your papers and property are diminished. No, they can't make you house troops within that zone. I'm also pretty sure they can't just come in my house on a whim. I live within that zone. I still have a right to express myself, bear firearms, etc...
- philipov 9y agoProbably not. Federal power trumps state power.
- sunshiney 9y agoTrue on paper but not in reality.
- JumpCrisscross 9y agoWould this case restrict federal agents?
- damnfine 9y agoCustoms is a whole different ballgame, federal rules tend to override state laws.
- TallGuyShort 9y agoUnlikely. This is really just saying that normal warrant requirements also apply to digital phones. But normal warrant requirements are already suspended in the case of Customs & Border Protection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception.
- rocqua 9y agoIn general, the 4th amendment protections against search without a warrant don't hold at customs. See the 'border search exception' [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception
- Arzh 9y agoArticle is about digital cameras, not phones. The article indicates that there was already a decision about cellphones and that it applies to cameras as well.
- fny 9y agoTitle fix is needed here
- lemoncucumber 9y agoBut feel free to search those analog phones all you want.
- ClickbaitTitle 9y agoMassachusetts
- mattstreet 9y agoIt doesn't matter what any court says when we don't do anything about officers violating someone's rights.
- pavel_lishin 9y agoIt absolutely matters, because if the officers do search your phone without a warrant, none of that information is admissible in court.
- X86BSD 9y agoThat does not stop nor deter the offenders. That is like having no law for murder and telling someone they can't murder you after you are dead.
- pavel_lishin 9y agoExcept in your ludicrous analogy, it's as if God were able to step in after the murder, point out that the murder was illegal, and then resurrected you. Sure, you spent some time dead (in jail/on trial), but afterwards you're free to go. And it absolutely deters offenders, as prosecutors and cops aren't fans of failing to prosecute someone because they fucked up and illegitimized the evidence they planned on using. I mean, sure, that particular cop got to laugh at your texts to your ex, but as far as evidence goes, it's a slam dunk for you.
- lightbyte 9y agoCops easily get around this with parallel construction. They illegally read your texts about you going to go pick up some drugs, then pull you over for "driving erratically" and "accidently" stumble upon the drugs you bought. The police do not care about your rights.
- Retric 9y agoThat's the kind of faith in the system that only people who have never seen it in action still have. A friend got pulled over for speeding. Cop did not clock their speed, at trial they did not even know the speed limit for the road. Judge "seems legit, your guilty."
- solomatov 9y agoIt's not the supreme court of the US but the supreme court of MA. They are different and have jurisdiction over different things.
- sunshiney 9y agoBut the blochain can, eh? (IRS)