3 ms·

It's almost unsporting. But these people aren't "'bad,'" they're meth dealers, and part of protecting innocent people is investigating crimes. If the phone sea

It's almost unsporting. But these people aren't "'bad,'" they're meth dealers, and part of protecting innocent people is investigating crimes. If the phone search reveals information identifying other drug dealers, that's a good thing. In some sense a decent compromise is that the phone search can only be used for evidence about other people. But only in the sense that it's unsporting. There's another option: don't commit crimes. It's pretty easy to not be a drug dealer. Protection against unreasonable search and seizure is about protecting people from harassment, trespass, and invasion of privacy -- not to protect them from the law.

elmerfud 7y ago
It is exactly about protection from the law. I think you should reread my last sentence. You are making the ends justify the means argument, that always ends up in a police state. Warrants require probable cause. Without post review accountably we can not be certain that all parties are acting properly. On occasions warrants and the evidence collected will be tossed out during trial. Is our law enforcement held accountable for that? My research says no, they are shielded from it and thus there is no downside for bad warrants. Consider one of your friends maybe a drug dealer and you don't know it. The police find records connecting you to them. Now you're under investigation, and crimes will be found if they want thento be found, and you're sucked in to a very expensive legal defence. Consider the more money the state spends on an investigation the more pressure there is to indict people regardless of actual crimes. Here is a prime example of this kind of crazy overreach. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial Yes, he's a drug dealer and people should not break the law, but as you begin to investigate everything, everyone is a criminal.
- SamReidHughes 7y ago
  He got caught selling meth, that's probable cause for searching his phone for evidence of other crimes. For example, where did he get the meth? What were his prior locations? > Consider one of your friends maybe a drug dealer and you don't know it. The police find records connecting you to them. Now you're under investigation, and crimes will be found if they want thento be found, and you're sucked in to a very expensive legal defence. I have had friends who were drug dealers and I didn't know it. Somehow this didn't result in the gestapo breaking into my house, when they got busted by the police. Police have investigated crimes involving people that have friends for over a century, so I don't buy your hypothetical scenario.
  - elmerfud 7y ago
    They did not specify the place or the items in the warrant. That's a big deal. On an electronic device you can be very specific as to what you're looking for not an open ended everything on this nonspecific device. Please read the link I posted if you blindly trust our Justice system to always do what's right. There are counter examples to your anecdote.
    - SamReidHughes 7y ago
      Operating by citing individual examples is dysrationalism. There is a trade-off here, with an entirely different kind of police state formed when the law can't track down organized crime because you won't even let it look at evidence rightfully in its possession.

elmerfud 7y ago

It is exactly about protection from the law. I think you should reread my last sentence. You are making the ends justify the means argument, that always ends up in a police state. Warrants require probable cause. Without post review accountably we can not be certain that all parties are acting properly. On occasions warrants and the evidence collected will be tossed out during trial. Is our law enforcement held accountable for that? My research says no, they are shielded from it and thus there is no downside for bad warrants. Consider one of your friends maybe a drug dealer and you don't know it. The police find records connecting you to them. Now you're under investigation, and crimes will be found if they want thento be found, and you're sucked in to a very expensive legal defence. Consider the more money the state spends on an investigation the more pressure there is to indict people regardless of actual crimes. Here is a prime example of this kind of crazy overreach. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial Yes, he's a drug dealer and people should not break the law, but as you begin to investigate everything, everyone is a criminal.

SamReidHughes 7y ago
He got caught selling meth, that's probable cause for searching his phone for evidence of other crimes. For example, where did he get the meth? What were his prior locations? > Consider one of your friends maybe a drug dealer and you don't know it. The police find records connecting you to them. Now you're under investigation, and crimes will be found if they want thento be found, and you're sucked in to a very expensive legal defence. I have had friends who were drug dealers and I didn't know it. Somehow this didn't result in the gestapo breaking into my house, when they got busted by the police. Police have investigated crimes involving people that have friends for over a century, so I don't buy your hypothetical scenario.
- elmerfud 7y ago
  They did not specify the place or the items in the warrant. That's a big deal. On an electronic device you can be very specific as to what you're looking for not an open ended everything on this nonspecific device. Please read the link I posted if you blindly trust our Justice system to always do what's right. There are counter examples to your anecdote.
  - SamReidHughes 7y ago
    Operating by citing individual examples is dysrationalism. There is a trade-off here, with an entirely different kind of police state formed when the law can't track down organized crime because you won't even let it look at evidence rightfully in its possession.