3 ms·

I don't agree with everything the commenter is saying but they are pointing out that the Western District Court of Washington is a federal district court under

I don't agree with everything the commenter is saying but they are pointing out that the Western District Court of Washington is a federal district court under the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction, so for this new rule to have significant weight it would need to be affirmed by the 9th Circuit

chrisco255 6y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that would mean it would need to be appealed? Why would the defendant appeal when the court ruled in their favor?
- abduhl 6y ago
  It’s a motion to suppress not a final ruling and so the government can appeal the granting of the motion (either now or at a later stage if they do not win).
- _bender_ 6y ago
  You're right, it would need to be appealed. The defendant would not appeal, but the government could, and likely will if it views this as a significant burden to police practice. An important thing to note is that federal district court decisions are not binding on other federal district courts (the decisions are persuasive authority, but do not force another judge's hands). Any other judge could decide not to follow this rule. Only if the rule is announced by the 9th circuit would district courts in the 9th circuit have to follow the rule. My main point is that while this is a promising decision, it is very far from the law of the land. And, as the original commenter pointed out, even if the 9th circuit upholds this ruling, the 9th circuit is only one circuit among many, and is often viewed as the most liberal circuit and not necessarily representative of the federal judiciary as a whole.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- Non24Throw 6y ago
  Even if this decision is cited as case law in another case (i.e. somebody leverages the precedent) and a judgment is made, that judgment can be appealed arguing that the lower court was wrong in this instance, and then it would be up to the 9th Circuit to decide. After the 9th Circuit makes their decision, it could still be appealed to the Supreme Court (which I think is the country’s overall direction the root commenter was referring to). This kind of issue will come up very frequently in court because everyone has a phone, and it’s very easy for a lock screen to contain incriminating notifications. That kind of evidence is often decisive in court, which makes it an attractive/persuasive argument for appeals. Very likely this will end up in Supreme Court, which means decisions in lower courts are less consequential. The lower courts aren’t going to get to decide this one.

chrisco255 6y ago

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that would mean it would need to be appealed? Why would the defendant appeal when the court ruled in their favor?

abduhl 6y ago
It’s a motion to suppress not a final ruling and so the government can appeal the granting of the motion (either now or at a later stage if they do not win).
_bender_ 6y ago
You're right, it would need to be appealed. The defendant would not appeal, but the government could, and likely will if it views this as a significant burden to police practice. An important thing to note is that federal district court decisions are not binding on other federal district courts (the decisions are persuasive authority, but do not force another judge's hands). Any other judge could decide not to follow this rule. Only if the rule is announced by the 9th circuit would district courts in the 9th circuit have to follow the rule. My main point is that while this is a promising decision, it is very far from the law of the land. And, as the original commenter pointed out, even if the 9th circuit upholds this ruling, the 9th circuit is only one circuit among many, and is often viewed as the most liberal circuit and not necessarily representative of the federal judiciary as a whole.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
Non24Throw 6y ago
Even if this decision is cited as case law in another case (i.e. somebody leverages the precedent) and a judgment is made, that judgment can be appealed arguing that the lower court was wrong in this instance, and then it would be up to the 9th Circuit to decide. After the 9th Circuit makes their decision, it could still be appealed to the Supreme Court (which I think is the country’s overall direction the root commenter was referring to). This kind of issue will come up very frequently in court because everyone has a phone, and it’s very easy for a lock screen to contain incriminating notifications. That kind of evidence is often decisive in court, which makes it an attractive/persuasive argument for appeals. Very likely this will end up in Supreme Court, which means decisions in lower courts are less consequential. The lower courts aren’t going to get to decide this one.