3 ms·

They should be required to attach a warrant ID to the device allowing someone to lookup the warrant however I am assuming in this case there was no warrant maki

They should be required to attach a warrant ID to the device allowing someone to lookup the warrant however I am assuming in this case there was no warrant making the whole thing illegal. Edit: they did have a warrant, which I missed reading the article.

munk-a 5y ago
According to the article it looks like they did secure a warrant first.
ChrisKnott 5y ago
What a ridiculous thing to assume. Especially since TFA features a statement literally saying "a warrant was obtained for the surveillance equipment."
- Miner49er 5y ago
  There's no reason to assume that the statement is true, it's coming from the police, they could easily be lying.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    There is, honestly, less of a reason to believe it's false. They may be lying but our legal system relies on us trusting the police to be honest and, ideally, strongly punishes those who abuse that trust. I'm happy to concede that policing in America has long eroded that trust but it's still a requirement that you obey and openly communicate with anyone identifying themselves as law enforcement.
    - greyface- 5y ago
      > it's still a requirement that you obey and openly communicate with anyone identifying themselves as law enforcement. There is no requirement that you communicate openly with police. See: the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution.
      - munk-a 5y ago
        Actually yea - I was wrongish on this one. It's a state level decision[1] with different requirements and generally a requirement of suspicion of guilt. I was mostly thinking of surface level information (identification and the like) rather than any sort of detailed information that might contribute to guilt - but even that surface level information is still protected information. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes
  - creato 5y ago
    Even if you don't trust police at all, it makes no sense for them to lie about this. The truth of the matter will come out in court, lying has no upside and significant downside.
    - greycol 5y ago
      What is the downside of the police lying? Assuming they didn't have a warrant then they either lie and it doesn't make the situation worse as police are allowed to lie or they don't lie and guarantee a lawsuit. I'd understand the argument for why they're incentivized to get a warrant in the first place (even assuming parallel construction is a viable alternative to getting a warrant as they may be caught) but that doesn't mean they wouldn't lie after they got caught screwing up.
rdiddly 5y ago
The source of that statement is the police, who have an incentive to lie at this point. And the statement is uncorroborated, and remains so by their own doing, since they're also apparently claiming the right to keep the warrant secret until after the investigation is over. Which doesn't sound too kosher. So you might've been right.
- gruez 5y ago
  >since they're also apparently claiming the right to keep the warrant secret until after the investigation is over Don't you have to present the warrant to the subject at the time of the "search"? In other words, you can't go knock on someone's door, claim that you have a warrant to search the house, and refuse to show it to him.
  - detaro 5y ago
    Don't know how it works for this specific case, but for surveillance warrants it's obviously not a requirement (e.g. tapping someone's phone doesn't really work if you tell them at the same time that you are doing that), with different places having different rules if and when exactly the target has to be informed.

munk-a 5y ago

According to the article it looks like they did secure a warrant first.

ChrisKnott 5y ago

What a ridiculous thing to assume. Especially since TFA features a statement literally saying "a warrant was obtained for the surveillance equipment."

Miner49er 5y ago
There's no reason to assume that the statement is true, it's coming from the police, they could easily be lying.
- munk-a 5y ago
  There is, honestly, less of a reason to believe it's false. They may be lying but our legal system relies on us trusting the police to be honest and, ideally, strongly punishes those who abuse that trust. I'm happy to concede that policing in America has long eroded that trust but it's still a requirement that you obey and openly communicate with anyone identifying themselves as law enforcement.
  - greyface- 5y ago
    > it's still a requirement that you obey and openly communicate with anyone identifying themselves as law enforcement. There is no requirement that you communicate openly with police. See: the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution.
    - munk-a 5y ago
      Actually yea - I was wrongish on this one. It's a state level decision[1] with different requirements and generally a requirement of suspicion of guilt. I was mostly thinking of surface level information (identification and the like) rather than any sort of detailed information that might contribute to guilt - but even that surface level information is still protected information. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes
- creato 5y ago
  Even if you don't trust police at all, it makes no sense for them to lie about this. The truth of the matter will come out in court, lying has no upside and significant downside.
  - greycol 5y ago
    What is the downside of the police lying? Assuming they didn't have a warrant then they either lie and it doesn't make the situation worse as police are allowed to lie or they don't lie and guarantee a lawsuit. I'd understand the argument for why they're incentivized to get a warrant in the first place (even assuming parallel construction is a viable alternative to getting a warrant as they may be caught) but that doesn't mean they wouldn't lie after they got caught screwing up.

rdiddly 5y ago

The source of that statement is the police, who have an incentive to lie at this point. And the statement is uncorroborated, and remains so by their own doing, since they're also apparently claiming the right to keep the warrant secret until after the investigation is over. Which doesn't sound too kosher. So you might've been right.

gruez 5y ago
>since they're also apparently claiming the right to keep the warrant secret until after the investigation is over Don't you have to present the warrant to the subject at the time of the "search"? In other words, you can't go knock on someone's door, claim that you have a warrant to search the house, and refuse to show it to him.
- detaro 5y ago
  Don't know how it works for this specific case, but for surveillance warrants it's obviously not a requirement (e.g. tapping someone's phone doesn't really work if you tell them at the same time that you are doing that), with different places having different rules if and when exactly the target has to be informed.