4 ms·

There's no way searching someone's car, based off their legal driving behavior, could be misused! The police have no repercussions for sending warrants to Goog

There's no way searching someone's car, based off their legal driving behavior, could be misused! The police have no repercussions for sending warrants to Google for phone information. Is searching someone for their legal driving behavior any better? https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/google-geofence-warrant-appeal-murder-rcna67028 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/google-geofence-warrant...

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
> The police have no repercussions for sending warrants to Google Yes, because judges, who are also human beings, love when cops flood them with stacks of bullshit requests.
- foomatic2u 3y ago
  What judge? Like ~third paragraph states system operates with no judicial oversight.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
    > The police have no repercussions for sending warrants to Google Those warrants.
    - indymike 3y ago
      The police cannot issue warrants. They can ask. Only a court can issue a warrant.
  - vorpalhex 3y ago
    A warrant requires a judge, otherwise it's not a warrant. If Google wants to obey non-warrants, that's on them but not legally required.
- foomatic2u 3y ago
  Most of these new data surveillance tools don't have a judge in the loop.
  - tankenmate 3y ago
    They do if they want a conviction.
  - hndamien 3y ago
    New like sniffer dogs?
recursive 3y ago
"Searching" a car is generally understood to mean looking inside of it. Observing the same car coming and going on public roads seems like it requires a lower bar. IANAL.
- titanomachy 3y ago
  They did search his car (based on his driving patterns) and found cocaine. The question isn't whether it was legal to observe the driving, but whether it was legal to search the car based on the observed patterns.
  - causality0 3y ago
    They pulled him over based on his driving patterns. They searched his car based on a K-9 unit alerting on the vehicle. https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20221109635 https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20221109635
    - pseudo0 3y ago
      Why do we allow K-9s to count as probable cause when they can be roughly as accurate as a coin flip? Eg. U.S. v. Bentley, where the particular dog in question had a documented 40.5% false positive rate in the field.
      - causality0 3y ago
        True but irrelevant. According to the Supreme Court K-9 alerts are probable cause. He was observed based on AI, pulled over based on multiple traffic violations including changing lanes without signaling, illegally passing on the right, and driving 15 mph over the speed limit, then it was searched based on a K-9 alert. Unless the police are simply lying about the traffic violations and have no evidence to back them up, this guy is going back to prison.
        LocalH 3y ago
        > True but irrelevant. According to the Supreme Court K-9 alerts are probable cause. Then we have a Supreme Court problem.
hdior 3y ago
[dead]

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago

> The police have no repercussions for sending warrants to Google Yes, because judges, who are also human beings, love when cops flood them with stacks of bullshit requests.

foomatic2u 3y ago
What judge? Like ~third paragraph states system operates with no judicial oversight.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  > The police have no repercussions for sending warrants to Google Those warrants.
  - indymike 3y ago
    The police cannot issue warrants. They can ask. Only a court can issue a warrant.
- vorpalhex 3y ago
  A warrant requires a judge, otherwise it's not a warrant. If Google wants to obey non-warrants, that's on them but not legally required.
foomatic2u 3y ago
Most of these new data surveillance tools don't have a judge in the loop.
- tankenmate 3y ago
  They do if they want a conviction.
- hndamien 3y ago
  New like sniffer dogs?

recursive 3y ago

"Searching" a car is generally understood to mean looking inside of it. Observing the same car coming and going on public roads seems like it requires a lower bar. IANAL.

titanomachy 3y ago
They did search his car (based on his driving patterns) and found cocaine. The question isn't whether it was legal to observe the driving, but whether it was legal to search the car based on the observed patterns.
- causality0 3y ago
  They pulled him over based on his driving patterns. They searched his car based on a K-9 unit alerting on the vehicle. https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20221109635 https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20221109635
  - pseudo0 3y ago
    Why do we allow K-9s to count as probable cause when they can be roughly as accurate as a coin flip? Eg. U.S. v. Bentley, where the particular dog in question had a documented 40.5% false positive rate in the field.
    - causality0 3y ago
      True but irrelevant. According to the Supreme Court K-9 alerts are probable cause. He was observed based on AI, pulled over based on multiple traffic violations including changing lanes without signaling, illegally passing on the right, and driving 15 mph over the speed limit, then it was searched based on a K-9 alert. Unless the police are simply lying about the traffic violations and have no evidence to back them up, this guy is going back to prison.
      - LocalH 3y ago
        > True but irrelevant. According to the Supreme Court K-9 alerts are probable cause. Then we have a Supreme Court problem.

hdior 3y ago

[dead]