6 ms·
This is a warrant: 1. Issued in relation to attempted arson, which I think we all agree fits closer with "serious crime" than "civil disobedience" 2. The warr
by dannyw 5y ago
This is a warrant:
1. Issued in relation to attempted arson, which I think we all agree fits closer with "serious crime" than "civil disobedience"
2. The warrant is detailed and specifically identifies two specific subjects, identified through CCTV footage and described in the warrant.
3. Is approved by a magistrate in a federal court.
4. Is issued for a specific location and a specific timeframe (75 minutes).
5. Is for a specific record of movements during the location and time, without account details, before the FBI asks which account details they want to subpoena.
Let's look at the fourth amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
Is there probable cause? Indisputably.
Was the application made under oath? Yes.
Is there a specific place? Yes, both in terms of space, and in terms of time.
Does it clearly describe what to be seized? Yes.
Has a warrant been issued by a Magistrate after review? Yes.
Sounds good to me. I oppose mass surveillance (fuck you, NSA), but this seems constitutional and reasonable to me.
- syshum 5y ago
- dannyw 5y ago> False, the warrant asked for data for all devices in a geographic location, they were then trying to use that data to find to individuals. Page 17: Page 17: "(a) [...] Google will not, in this step, provide the Google account identifiers (e.g. example@gmail.com) associated with the devices" "(b) [..] The government may, at its discretion, identify a subset of the devices" "(c) [..] Google will then disclose to the government the Google account identifier associated with the devices identified by government" The warrant specifically addresses Google. > The courts rarely reject any warrant requests, this should give everyone pause for concern This could also mean law enforcement generally only issues warrants when there is probable cause and legal basis to do so; such as in this case. This warrant being unsealed and public also means the public can review it. I am absolutely concerned about the encroachment of civil liberties, constitutional rights, and privacy. This specific example is not a battle I would disagree on, or fight.
- syshum 5y ago
- crmd 5y agoWhat scares me about these scenarios is how it fabricates durable probable cause on the basis of being in the vicinity of the wrong place at the wrong time. Imagine becoming a felon because the police searched your phone and found a discussion between you and your friend about buying LSD, and discovering that the legal basis for that search was that your phone was in the vicinity of a crime scene a couple of years ago. This is bad news.
- Fnoord 5y agoThere's a simple way around that: any evidence found for crimes, can only be used to prosecute the original crime involving the law why the warrant was issued. Everyone else is offtopic, and therefore discarded. I know, there's parallel evidence, but the fact its possible doesn't mean such should be used.
- krisoft 5y agoIt becomes very hard to discuss these things when we are mixing up what we think the law should be with what the law is. What you are saying is a reasonable proposal, but it is not how it works now. And it is very unlikely to change in the close future.
- Fnoord 5y agoI don't know how US law is, but in The Netherlands this would've been unlawful evidence [1]. [1] https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onrechtmatig_verkregen_bewijs https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onrechtmatig_verkregen_bewijs
- vel0city 5y agoThe US has a similar idea of illegally obtained evidence, its a very common concept. This is different from the above suggestion, which is essentially any unrelated evidence of crimes found while executing an unrelated search warrant is void. For example, a warrant is issued to find documents related to criminal fraud, while searching someone's office for materials related to the fraud they find a pile of illegal drugs. In the above suggestion, they wouldn't be able to prosecute drug violations as they discovered the drugs during an otherwise lawful search but its unrelated to the crime the warrant was issued for. The original search wasn't illegal, just that the second crime wasn't related to the issued warrant.
- amusedcyclist 5y ago
- FredPret 5y agoAre you listening to yourself?! It’s only a little Molotov cocktail, no big deal, hope nobody dies in the ensuing fire that will by the way cause huge property damage.
- BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago“Fiery, but mostly peaceful”
- fortran77 5y agoWow! I think you should reconsider your stand on throwing incendiary devices.
- Ekaros 5y agoSo you would be entirely okay with police not trying to use available information to find a person throwing molotov cocktail at your house or you? After all they are marginal actors and single person or home isn't large scale damage?
- pydry 5y agoI'm ok with throwing a molotov cocktail at corporate/police property as a response to police killing people and getting away with it. There are few "reasonable" options for redress or protest when the system itself is guilty and successfully sweeping nonviolent protest under the rug. Those who feel more instinctive revulsion to intentional property damage than to injustice against human lives are part of the problem and must change. Property is never more important than human life.
- CodeGlitch 5y agoI'm not. I don't want mob rule or anarchy. There are plenty of examples of people bringing about social changes through peaceful protests and other means.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]