3 ms·

Since when are police empowered to issue their own warrants? (As opposed to a judge)

dragonwriter 9y ago
The sentence structure is ambiguous, but it is a perfectly common way of expressing that the police were issued warrants as well as the interpretation you seem to have of it expressing that the police have issued warrants.
- DrScump 9y ago
  It's not the ambiguous headline that got my attention; it's this, in the body of the article: WRAL reporter Tyler Dukes found four investigations in 2017 where *police issued these uniquely extensive warrants*... That wording is absolutely clear to anybody who read the body of the article. It may be factually incorrect, but the writer clearly claims that the police issued the warrants. There also is no mention anywhere of any judicial participation at all.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    Ah, good point; I missed that on a fast pass through the article. I have seen that formulation referring to the warrant process in which police draft the warrant and support it and judges sign off on it and then the police execute the warrant; it’s legally incorrect but arguably deeply accurate in terms of the practical process of who is crafting the details of the warrant and then actually demanding compliance with them.
greenyoda 9y ago
I believe that the headline is intended to be read as: "NC Police Were Issued Warrants to Search Data on All Google Devices Near Murder Scene" Headlines are frequently written in terse language to save space. In this case, I'd guess that the editors assumed that since everyone knows that judges issue warrants, the intent would be clear.
- DrScump 9y ago
  Within the article text: WRAL reporter Tyler Dukes found four investigations in 2017 where **police issued these uniquely extensive warrants**...
  - greenyoda 9y ago
    Sorry, I missed that sentence. It seems like sloppy or ignorant reporting. The original WRAL investigation referenced by this article makes it clear that a judge issued the warrant: > "On a satellite image, they drew shapes around the crime scenes, marking the coordinates on the map. Then they convinced a Wake County judge they had enough probable cause to order Google to hand over account identifiers on every single cell phone that crossed the digital cordon during certain times."[1] The WRAL article, in turn, links to the actual warrant, which is indeed signed by a judge.[2] So in this case, the HN guideline that asks us to "submit the original source" would have resulted in a higher quality article that would have avoided all this confusion. [1] http://www.wral.com/to-find-suspects-police-quietly-turn-to-google/17377435 http://www.wral.com/to-find-suspects-police-quietly-turn-to-... (which someone submitted earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16604181 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16604181) [2] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4388571-20170308-homicide-warrant.html#document/p5/a410668 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4388571-20170308-hom...
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

The sentence structure is ambiguous, but it is a perfectly common way of expressing that the police were issued warrants as well as the interpretation you seem to have of it expressing that the police have issued warrants.

DrScump 9y ago
It's not the ambiguous headline that got my attention; it's this, in the body of the article: WRAL reporter Tyler Dukes found four investigations in 2017 where *police issued these uniquely extensive warrants*... That wording is absolutely clear to anybody who read the body of the article. It may be factually incorrect, but the writer clearly claims that the police issued the warrants. There also is no mention anywhere of any judicial participation at all.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Ah, good point; I missed that on a fast pass through the article. I have seen that formulation referring to the warrant process in which police draft the warrant and support it and judges sign off on it and then the police execute the warrant; it’s legally incorrect but arguably deeply accurate in terms of the practical process of who is crafting the details of the warrant and then actually demanding compliance with them.

greenyoda 9y ago

I believe that the headline is intended to be read as: "NC Police Were Issued Warrants to Search Data on All Google Devices Near Murder Scene" Headlines are frequently written in terse language to save space. In this case, I'd guess that the editors assumed that since everyone knows that judges issue warrants, the intent would be clear.

DrScump 9y ago
Within the article text: WRAL reporter Tyler Dukes found four investigations in 2017 where **police issued these uniquely extensive warrants**...
- greenyoda 9y ago
  Sorry, I missed that sentence. It seems like sloppy or ignorant reporting. The original WRAL investigation referenced by this article makes it clear that a judge issued the warrant: > "On a satellite image, they drew shapes around the crime scenes, marking the coordinates on the map. Then they convinced a Wake County judge they had enough probable cause to order Google to hand over account identifiers on every single cell phone that crossed the digital cordon during certain times."[1] The WRAL article, in turn, links to the actual warrant, which is indeed signed by a judge.[2] So in this case, the HN guideline that asks us to "submit the original source" would have resulted in a higher quality article that would have avoided all this confusion. [1] http://www.wral.com/to-find-suspects-police-quietly-turn-to-google/17377435 http://www.wral.com/to-find-suspects-police-quietly-turn-to-... (which someone submitted earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16604181 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16604181) [2] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4388571-20170308-homicide-warrant.html#document/p5/a410668 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4388571-20170308-hom...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]