5 ms·

> Unsurprisingly, however, the court found that in 2018, police could have relied on such a warrant in “good faith,” because geofence technology was novel, and

by hed 2y ago

> Unsurprisingly, however, the court found that in 2018, police could have relied on such a warrant in “good faith,” because geofence technology was novel, and police reached out to other agencies with more experience for guidance. This means that the evidence they obtained will not be suppressed in this case. That the guy's case gets a right affirmed yet in his individual case it won't make a difference has to be a pretty bitter pill to swallow.

cryptonector 2y ago
It also makes it hard for the government to appeal the ruling, which then might just stand as precedent throughout the 5th circuit.
RetpolineDrama 2y ago
What utter nonsense on behalf of the courts. The "good faith" defense is irrelevant to the finding that a fundamental right was violated, and to deny the original defendant relief like this is just absurd.
- cryptonector 2y ago
  This is a way for the courts not to get bad press. For the defendant at the time this is a terrible ending. For everyone else it's still nice. From a court's perspective this is a good compromise.
  - Supermancho 2y ago
    If this was about discrimination of race, as a rights violation, it is clear that good faith is irrelevant. Rights supercede good faith and the presumption or previous decisions are improper.
  - salawat 2y ago
    No it isn't. This is one of those cases where by tweaking things as such the Judiciary has shown that it cannot be trusted to keep the Executive in line. Again. The Courts are coming out of this looking even worse than they have been.
    - cryptonector 2y ago
      I don't disagree. But I'm telling you how I think the judges feel about this, not how you should feel about it.
- ARandomerDude 2y ago
  Exactly. The fundamental assumption of the Bill of Rights is that governments do not operate in good faith. If they did, there would be no need to spell out how the government is not allowed to abuse you.
- parineum 2y ago
  It's more complicated than that. All they really did was suspend the "fruit of the poison tree" doctrine. The evidence gathered by the now ruled unconstitutional methods is not allowed to be used but the evidence gathered afterwards is still admissable where it normally would not be. In this case, they can't use the geofence data of their locations as evidence but, after they used that to identify suspects, they can use all evidence gathered afterwards where that would normally not be allowed.
khuey 2y ago
Basically every noteworthy Fourth Amendment case works this way unfortunately.
andrewla 2y ago
I am not a lawyer, but the language of the opinion [1] seems to indicate that the geofence itself is not admissible, but evidence obtained as a result of it is still admissible: > On November 4, 2022, Smith filed a Motion to Suppress— which the other Appellants joined—seeking to suppress all evidence derived from the November 2018 geofence warrant which was used to identify them as suspects. They were identified as suspects, and further investigation produced more evidence, which formed the case. What they are saying is that the good faith exception prevents this from tainting all derived evidence in this case, which seems reasonable. The good faith exception is an exception to the exclusionary rule, not to the admissibility of the evidence itself. [1] https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-60321-CR0.pdf https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-60321-CR0.pd...
- flavius29663 2y ago
  > the opinion [1] seems to indicate that the geofence itself is not admissible, but evidence obtained as a result of it is still admissible That means they can geofence to get a short list of suspects, and then file proper warrants for some of them if they have more clues?
  - burkaman 2y ago
    Not anymore, now that this precedent is set.
    - ticviking 2y ago
      I'm still wondering how this precedent prevents parallel construction nonsense
      - refulgentis 2y ago
        I'm confused how parallel construction plays in here, nonsense adds another layer of confusion, but an attempt to help, tl;dr: the 5th Circuit has held that requesting a list of people/IPs/devices in a location is not permissible. I'm just trying to guess a gap: engineers tend to see law as more iron, like code, and judge law based on inverse programming: if you can find some set of circumstances that creates a gap where the law isn't obeyed. Ex. here, you might mean that this doesn't technically stop police from requesting geofenced data anyway, using it to get suspects, then not mentioning it at trial. Yes, technically, the police could ignore this, and request a warrant, then the judge could ignore it, then the tech companies could ignore it, the DA could collude with the police to hide that happened, and pretend they found the suspect a different way. But it's impractical. It's hard to spell out why, exactly, tl;dr: death penalty for your career if any of this is discovered by anyone, you can't do it by yourself, and these people are generally on the same team in our distanced analysis, people are tribal, and gov't attorneys/tech companies/judges/police can't rely on eachother's silence.
OldSchool 2y ago
Was "Stop and Frisk" by the NYPD also in good faith for the decade or more that it took to get it declared unconstitutional?
refulgentis 2y ago
That's why I love the law's ability to consider context: the structure protects what is right over the pedantic, here, letting a violent criminal skate 6 years later because of new thinking.
GeekyBear 2y ago
Relevant: > Good faith provides an exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule barring the use at trial of evidence obtained pursuant to an unlawful search and seizure. If officers had reasonable, good faith belief that they were acting according to legal authority, such as by relying on a search warrant that is later found to have been legally defective, the illegally seized evidence is admissible under this exception. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/good_faith_exception_to_exclusionary_rule https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/good_faith_exception_to_excl... It's unfortunate for the defendant, but does follow existing precedent.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
MediumOwl 2y ago
> That the guy's case gets a right affirmed yet in his individual case it won't make a difference has to be a pretty bitter pill to swallow. Big Jean-Marc Bosman energy, who essentially changed the face of football (soccer) forever in the 90's because his club didn't want to let him leave, but he didn't play anymore all the trials.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

by hed 2y ago

cryptonector 2y ago

It also makes it hard for the government to appeal the ruling, which then might just stand as precedent throughout the 5th circuit.

RetpolineDrama 2y ago

What utter nonsense on behalf of the courts. The "good faith" defense is irrelevant to the finding that a fundamental right was violated, and to deny the original defendant relief like this is just absurd.

cryptonector 2y ago
This is a way for the courts not to get bad press. For the defendant at the time this is a terrible ending. For everyone else it's still nice. From a court's perspective this is a good compromise.
- Supermancho 2y ago
  If this was about discrimination of race, as a rights violation, it is clear that good faith is irrelevant. Rights supercede good faith and the presumption or previous decisions are improper.
- salawat 2y ago
  No it isn't. This is one of those cases where by tweaking things as such the Judiciary has shown that it cannot be trusted to keep the Executive in line. Again. The Courts are coming out of this looking even worse than they have been.
  - cryptonector 2y ago
    I don't disagree. But I'm telling you how I think the judges feel about this, not how you should feel about it.
ARandomerDude 2y ago
Exactly. The fundamental assumption of the Bill of Rights is that governments do not operate in good faith. If they did, there would be no need to spell out how the government is not allowed to abuse you.
parineum 2y ago
It's more complicated than that. All they really did was suspend the "fruit of the poison tree" doctrine. The evidence gathered by the now ruled unconstitutional methods is not allowed to be used but the evidence gathered afterwards is still admissable where it normally would not be. In this case, they can't use the geofence data of their locations as evidence but, after they used that to identify suspects, they can use all evidence gathered afterwards where that would normally not be allowed.

khuey 2y ago

Basically every noteworthy Fourth Amendment case works this way unfortunately.

andrewla 2y ago

I am not a lawyer, but the language of the opinion [1] seems to indicate that the geofence itself is not admissible, but evidence obtained as a result of it is still admissible: > On November 4, 2022, Smith filed a Motion to Suppress— which the other Appellants joined—seeking to suppress all evidence derived from the November 2018 geofence warrant which was used to identify them as suspects. They were identified as suspects, and further investigation produced more evidence, which formed the case. What they are saying is that the good faith exception prevents this from tainting all derived evidence in this case, which seems reasonable. The good faith exception is an exception to the exclusionary rule, not to the admissibility of the evidence itself. [1] https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-60321-CR0.pdf https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-60321-CR0.pd...

flavius29663 2y ago
> the opinion [1] seems to indicate that the geofence itself is not admissible, but evidence obtained as a result of it is still admissible That means they can geofence to get a short list of suspects, and then file proper warrants for some of them if they have more clues?
- burkaman 2y ago
  Not anymore, now that this precedent is set.
  - ticviking 2y ago
    I'm still wondering how this precedent prevents parallel construction nonsense
    - refulgentis 2y ago
      I'm confused how parallel construction plays in here, nonsense adds another layer of confusion, but an attempt to help, tl;dr: the 5th Circuit has held that requesting a list of people/IPs/devices in a location is not permissible. I'm just trying to guess a gap: engineers tend to see law as more iron, like code, and judge law based on inverse programming: if you can find some set of circumstances that creates a gap where the law isn't obeyed. Ex. here, you might mean that this doesn't technically stop police from requesting geofenced data anyway, using it to get suspects, then not mentioning it at trial. Yes, technically, the police could ignore this, and request a warrant, then the judge could ignore it, then the tech companies could ignore it, the DA could collude with the police to hide that happened, and pretend they found the suspect a different way. But it's impractical. It's hard to spell out why, exactly, tl;dr: death penalty for your career if any of this is discovered by anyone, you can't do it by yourself, and these people are generally on the same team in our distanced analysis, people are tribal, and gov't attorneys/tech companies/judges/police can't rely on eachother's silence.

OldSchool 2y ago

Was "Stop and Frisk" by the NYPD also in good faith for the decade or more that it took to get it declared unconstitutional?

refulgentis 2y ago

That's why I love the law's ability to consider context: the structure protects what is right over the pedantic, here, letting a violent criminal skate 6 years later because of new thinking.

GeekyBear 2y ago

Relevant: > Good faith provides an exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule barring the use at trial of evidence obtained pursuant to an unlawful search and seizure. If officers had reasonable, good faith belief that they were acting according to legal authority, such as by relying on a search warrant that is later found to have been legally defective, the illegally seized evidence is admissible under this exception. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/good_faith_exception_to_exclusionary_rule https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/good_faith_exception_to_excl... It's unfortunate for the defendant, but does follow existing precedent.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

MediumOwl 2y ago

> That the guy's case gets a right affirmed yet in his individual case it won't make a difference has to be a pretty bitter pill to swallow. Big Jean-Marc Bosman energy, who essentially changed the face of football (soccer) forever in the 90's because his club didn't want to let him leave, but he didn't play anymore all the trials.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]