3 ms·

Shouldn't the consequence of the agent not doing their job be that the agent gets fired? Why should a criminal benefit? If his rights were violated, he can sue.

ok_dad 3y ago
> Why should a criminal benefit? Because that's the way the 4th amendment works. If the state isn't good enough at their job to train their agents properly, then fuck 'em. > If his rights were violated, he can sue. They were, he did, and this case was the result. His rights were simply violated with no recourse, is what this judge said.
throwway120385 3y ago
One of the consequences of an agent being bad at their job is that they accidentally put the wrong person in jail for a crime. Because some of the drafters felt that it was more important to protect the innocent, they decided to put the onus on the government to follow procedure when trying suspects.
biofunsf 3y ago
It's of course absurd that the law was ambiguous enough in the first place that a warrant wasn't obviously required and it took the Supreme Court to resolve this. But the search in this case happened in 2019. How was the agent supposed to know what the Supreme Court would decide 4 years later after many appeals? The agents were acting reasonably enough, according to the law, that it took the Supreme Court to resolve it. This isn't a clear case of an agent not doing their job as it was defined. For example, we're also not going to retroactively fire all the other agents that also conducted searches like this even earlier. (We're not even going to overturn rulings of people convicted on evidence from warrantless border phone searches, since these Supreme Court rulings aren't retroactive. That's the worst thing about this in my mind). But after this ruling we can now definitively say that agents conducting warrantless border phone searches are not doing their job and should be fired. The evidence would now be thrown out in court anyway.

ok_dad 3y ago

> Why should a criminal benefit? Because that's the way the 4th amendment works. If the state isn't good enough at their job to train their agents properly, then fuck 'em. > If his rights were violated, he can sue. They were, he did, and this case was the result. His rights were simply violated with no recourse, is what this judge said.

throwway120385 3y ago

One of the consequences of an agent being bad at their job is that they accidentally put the wrong person in jail for a crime. Because some of the drafters felt that it was more important to protect the innocent, they decided to put the onus on the government to follow procedure when trying suspects.

biofunsf 3y ago

It's of course absurd that the law was ambiguous enough in the first place that a warrant wasn't obviously required and it took the Supreme Court to resolve this. But the search in this case happened in 2019. How was the agent supposed to know what the Supreme Court would decide 4 years later after many appeals? The agents were acting reasonably enough, according to the law, that it took the Supreme Court to resolve it. This isn't a clear case of an agent not doing their job as it was defined. For example, we're also not going to retroactively fire all the other agents that also conducted searches like this even earlier. (We're not even going to overturn rulings of people convicted on evidence from warrantless border phone searches, since these Supreme Court rulings aren't retroactive. That's the worst thing about this in my mind). But after this ruling we can now definitively say that agents conducting warrantless border phone searches are not doing their job and should be fired. The evidence would now be thrown out in court anyway.