3 ms·
It doesn't need a warrant, but a subpoena is just to compel Twitter/X to release the information, while a warrant would legally require Twitter/X to release the
by notaustinpowers 3y ago
It doesn't need a warrant, but a subpoena is just to compel Twitter/X to release the information, while a warrant would legally require Twitter/X to release the information.
The issue is that the subpoena told Twitter/X not to inform the accountholder that their information was going to be given to the NYPD, nor inform the accountholder of the subpoena's existence. While that's enforceable with a warrant, it is not enforceable with a subpoena.
This shows how NYPD is attempting to compel companies to provide them with personal information of users, and keep it secret from the users, all without needing a judge's approval or warrant. That is not the proper channel to do this, and they know they have no legal leg to stand on which is why they aren't going to try to fight it's legitimacy in court.
- none_to_remain 3y agoMy understanding as a non-practitioner is that subpoenas are addressed to a person (individual or corporate) compelling them to produce evidence or testimony, while a warrant is addressed to police, giving them the power to effect a specific search, seizure, or arrest.
- notaustinpowers 3y agoPer Federal Law (Stored Communications Act), authorities that want to access electronic records need a court-issued warrant. This failed to meet that requirement.
- MacsHeadroom 3y agoYes, but if presented with a warrant for your property (ex. subscriber information) you must comply or be charged with obstructing justice or impeding an investigation. When presented with an administrative subpoena not backed by a warrant you may be able to deny the subpoena without being guilty of such crimes.
- WhiskeyChicken 3y agoSubpoenas are never "backed by a warrant." Probably what you mean is a subpoena signed by a judge, rather than the self-issued "administrative" subpoena being discussed here.