Your statement ignores the fact that this article’s info comes from the DHS Inspector General’s report on CSS usage within the department. The IG did the legwor

Your statement ignores the fact that this article’s info comes from the DHS Inspector General’s report on CSS usage within the department. The IG did the legwork to figure out that agents didn’t comply with department policy, nor the relevant Pen Tap and Trace statutes. In the case that agents use the already well established workarounds for 4A protections, the agents must still file for a warrant post hoc within 48 hours, which they didn’t do, hence the article. And Stingrays / CSS devices are used, there is always an unreasonable search applied towards all phones accidentally intercepted, so there is good reason for both department policy to be followed, and for a judge to at least review this after the fact. Your comment is lazy. The IG report exists for a reason. It removes almost all of the ambiguity you pretend might exist in these cases.