4 ms·
> The instructions open with asking readers to make sure they do have legal authorization to search the device; this can be in the form of a search warrant. Th
by gnu8 5y ago
> The instructions open with asking readers to make sure they do have legal authorization to search the device; this can be in the form of a search warrant.
This is a joke. As a rule, law enforcement does not respect fourth amendment rights and see the constitution only as red tape to be ignored or circumvented whenever convenient.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y agoDo you have a source for that claim?
- 4ec0755f5522 5y agoThis is, unfortunately, in the 'water is wet' category of observable reality.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y agoNo. I personally know law enforcement officers who go above and beyond, often getting warrants they think they don't need to err on the side of caution. So. Do you have a source for that?
- serf 5y agoI don't know what kind of proof or sources would satisfy you; I concur with the earlier poster that claims that this kind of thing should be considered a 'water is wet' statement, but if I thought that police conducted their affairs 'by the book', i'd have some questions and misgivings about the disproportionately large sums of money that come out of city coffers to pay for settling police misconduct cases[0]. or i'd check out Justice Robert's thoughts on fourth amendment violations with regards to violent police actions[1]. Apparently getting shot can be considered a seizure; plenty of people every day shot in the midst of unwarranted and illegal police actions, by police officers who often fail to convince the courts that their actions could ever be considered reasonable. I'm not going to bother linking data about 'Police Brutality United States 2020' or 'Police Misconduct United States 2020' -- the datasets are numerous , feel free to google those phrases. I feel as if I were to link one you'd just judge whichever I chose For every law enforcement officer, who you may anecdotally know personally, that does things 'The Right Way', there is an un-told number of LEOs that fail to share the same altruistic and noble priorities that your friends might. [0]: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/police-misconduct-costs-cities-millions-every-year-but-thats-where-the-accountability-ends/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/police-misconduct-costs... [1]: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/woman-shot-by-police-wins-supreme-court-seizure-case https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/woman-shot-by-poli...
- simondotau 5y agoSomething I hold as a truism about humans is that most individuals are good and honourable, but collate these good people into a large group and the result is generally terrible and untrustworthy. I don't see any reason why that wouldn't also apply to people in law enforcement.
- jborichevskiy 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y agoMeaningless without some point of reference. I'm not arguing that law enforcement is always ethical but the parent comment claimed that law enforcement ignores warrants, "as a rule".
- wombat-man 5y agoI mean generally the penalty for violating your privacy is nothing actually. If they discover evidence by violating your privacy you may exclude it from consideration. since it was obtained illegally. But there isn't really a penalty for a police officer reading your diary or whatever as you are not able to show damages. Because there isn't really a penalty, I'd assume some officers might not mind peeking into your device just to have a look.
- EricE 5y agoSure - just this week is an example of the supreme court smacking down one such abuse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqFIIf0o2Ps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqFIIf0o2Ps This crap happens all the time.