3 ms·
If the author thinks a judge shouldn't be allowed to impose a time frame on a search warrant, does that mean the author thinks the government should be able to
by kmoser 3y ago
If the author thinks a judge shouldn't be allowed to impose a time frame on a search warrant, does that mean the author thinks the government should be able to execute the warrant any time in the future? That sounds ripe for abuse: the government could get a warrant, wait as long as they want for the suspect to do something else they think is suspicious, then execute the warrant at their leisure.
- quickthrower2 3y agoI think you need a process of extensions where each extension can be reasonably denied or approved. Old evidence is evidence, e.g. DNA and that should be used to both prosecute and to set innocent people free. I get the potential for abuse, that is why you need a time limit and process to extend it.
- grendelt 3y agoI wonder too how statute of limitations would play into such a "timeless warrant". What if a crime was committed, digital evidence exists, but the statute of limitations passes before investigators can access the evidence? How would that possibility play out?
- tacitusarc 3y agoThe author believes the reasonableness provision of the fourth amendment would cover that.
- firstlink 3y agoThe author is engaging in severe self-delusion.
- pavon 3y agoWhile obviously Orin Kerr has far more background on these subjects than I do, I don't agree with his reasoning here. The fourth amendment requires police to get a warrant from a judge before performing a search and seizure[1]. The judge's job is to ensure the warrant application has ample justification and the scope of the search is reasonable by fourth amendment standards, and may put limits on this search (ex ante restrictions) as necessary to bound the scope to what is reasonable. The police have no authority to perform a search beyond what the warrant allows[1]. If they think the warrant is unnecessarily restrictive, the solution is to appeal. It is not acceptable to just ignore the restrictions because they don't agree with the judge. The police should be held accountable for going beyond the scope of a warrant even if a broader warrant that included their activities would have been a reasonable search. So in this case, it would have been completely reasonable for the judge to authorize the police to spend as much time as they needed to crack the password, mirror the device, and then come back for another warrant to search the contents. But the judge's warrant didn't authorize that, and the evidence should be discarded for going beyond the scope of the warrant. [1] Beyond the normal exemptions that allow warrant-less searches.
- tiahura 3y agoMaybe the article deserves a second reading, but as an attorney, I found this argument rather odd as well. DOJ should have asked for more time at the beginning. If they did and didn’t get it, they should have objected to the district court judge. If they did and were overruled, and this was so important, they should have bothered to get the renewals. To argue that a judge can’t or shouldn’t place a time limit on search warrants is unpersuasive.
- zerotolerance 3y agoIt is deeper than that, the author appears to be a constitutional absolutist and is pitching a perspective that calls into question any law or condition that narrows or refines the conditions under which a warrant is issued. But this is obviously the case since the article is on a hyper-libertarian rag.