10 ms·
> U.S. District Juste Miranda M. Du rejected this argument, but wouldn’t suppress the evidence. “The Court finds that a tower dump is a search and the warrant l
by hiatus 2y ago
> U.S. District Juste Miranda M. Du rejected this argument, but wouldn’t suppress the evidence. “The Court finds that a tower dump is a search and the warrant law enforcement used to get it is a general warrant forbidden under the Fourth Amendment,” she said in a ruling filed on April 11. “That said, because the Court appears to be the first court within the Ninth Circuit to reach this conclusion and the good faith exception otherwise applies, the Court will not order any evidence suppressed.”
It continues to amaze me that police are the only group who can use the defense of ignorance of the law.
- Terr_ 2y agoNot only that, when they lie in conversations/interrogations, they can lie about what the law is, as well as what official acts can/will undertake. To me there is a fundamental difference between lies like: 1. "Your buddy in the next room already ratted you out." 2. "Sign this admission and you'll only get 6 months, tops. If you don't, we can seize your house and your mother will be living on the streets. "
- nemomarx 2y agoI get your point but actually why can they lie and claim your buddy ratted you out?
- p_ing 2y agoTax payers don't care enough to force the congress critters to change the laws in <your home state>. Instead, you get human beings who are shielded by a thin piece of paper who can summarily execute you, then say "whoops, my bad". Police are nothing more than State-sponsored gang members.
- pstuart 2y agoMany of those tax payers are fine with them being gang members, but only against "others" -- that's a feature, not a bug.
- deepsun 2y agoState (any country, since the birth of monarchies) is the gang. It literally robs you ("taxes"), monopolized violence (only state is allowed to utilize it). But if it does a poor job at that, other states swoop in with their rules, no invitation needed.
- Retric 2y agoCops are sufficiently independent to be a separate entity here. Under civil asset forfeiture they are literally allowed to go out and rob people independent of what any taxes might be.
- duskwuff 2y ago> Police are nothing more than State-sponsored gang members. Sometimes very literally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangs_in_the_Los_Angeles_County_Sheriff%27s_Department https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangs_in_the_Los_Angeles_Count...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Zak 2y agoThe assumption, as I understand it is that a guilty person is more likely to confess if they believe the evidence against them is strong, but an innocent person will not believe the lie because they know they didn't commit the crime and generate the purported evidence. I fear like many other old assumptions about criminal justice that isn't a close match to reality.
- Terr_ 2y agoI imagine a lot of it is tradition, AFAICT it was never really banned in the US (or Britain), although in the US it was codified in 1969. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frazier_v._Cupp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frazier_v._Cupp
- dghlsakjg 2y agoSimple answer? Because there is nothing prohibiting it.
- plsbenice34 2y agoI dont see the difference, both should be illegal
- LinuxBender 2y agoNever talk to the police. Let your lawyers do the talking.
- gosub100 2y ago[flagged]
- Kinrany 2y agoYou're interpreting GP's comment in bad faith.
- AlexeyBelov 2y agoIt's a pattern for this user. Seriously, read their comments. I don't understand why HN tolerated that.
- gosub100 1y agosomeone has different views than you. can you handle that?
- gosub100 2y agoHe used the word "never". That's not a word requiring interpretation. And for finding this gaping hole in his argument, I'm rewarded by getting flagged.
- some-guy 2y agoWhen I was a child, I thought police had to go to law school. How else would you enforce the law if you didn't know what the law was?
- Clubber 2y agoThey're supposed to be trained on it, and they probably get a week maybe, depending on the academy. The rest is how to beat your ass.
- redeux 2y agoI took a class in college from a lawyer who said he started as a cop but wanted to understand the law better so he went to law school at night. When he graduated the chief (or whatever) told him he couldn’t practice law and be a cop, and even though he had no intention of actually being an attorney, they let him go.
- bryanrasmussen 2y agomaybe related https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836 https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/st...
- ein0p 2y agoLiterally too smart to be regime muscle.
- jasonm23 2y agoRegime... how cute to call money a regime.
- underdeserver 2y agoWe all have to go to law school. How could you live in the world without breaking the law if you didn't know what the law was?
- 2y ago
- voxic11 2y agoThey can't do 2. Or at least it would make the confession inadmissible evidence. The case law for this goes back more than a century. The general rule is that the police cannot promise you anything in return for a confession. > Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532 (1897), was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that an alleged confession to a crime, in order to be admissible, must not be obtained by threats or violence, nor by any direct or implied promises, however slight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bram_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bram_v._United_States The ruling was later applied to the states as well in Malloy v. Hogan > The Court held that the Fifth Amendment's exception from compulsory self-incrimination is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgement by a state. When determining if state officers properly obtained a confession, one must focus on whether the statements were made freely and voluntarily without any direct or implied promises or improper influence. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/110 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/110 The "you will get X years instead of Y years" has repeatedly been found to make testimony inadmissible. You might be confusing it with plea bargains which are legal but don't involve the police and are actually binding agreements. The prosecutor cannot lie to you about what you will receive in return for your cooperation.
- decimalenough 2y ago> The general rule is that the police cannot promise you anything in return for a confession. Yet plea bargaining is basically a promise in exchange for a confession (guilty plea), and that's why it's not allowed basically anywhere except the US.
- bryanrasmussen 2y agoplea bargaining in the U.S also is a promise that they will recommend that you get a particular deal, but the judge in sentencing can decide not to take that deal.
- voxic11 2y agoYes maybe my wording was clumsy but that is what I was attempting to say. The important thing is the prosecutor is not allowed to lie to you as part of the plea bargain. If they promise to do something like give a specific recommendation to the judge they must do it or risk the verdict being overturned.
- wutwutwat 2y agoWho does the court work for? The government. Who do the police work for? The government. Yeah yeah, they work for “the people” “the tax payer” whatever. They work for the government. They get their paychecks from the same place. What are you expecting here? This isn’t equal.
- ceejayoz 2y agoThere's a very good chance the cops in question do not work for the Federal government. They certainly don't work for the judicial branch. It isn't a perfect setup, but it's better than many.
- ty6853 2y agoThe whole thing is intertwined. Podunk cops often get put on 3 letter task forces and work in a mutual arrangement with each other. They often have a really clever scam going on where they kick seizures up to federal agencies, since it is so much harder to block/contest federal forfeitures than local ones, and then the federal agencies kick back a fraction of it. Maybe their paychecks don't come from the federal government nominally but in practice it's highly intermixed.
- wutwutwat 2y agoThey all get paid from my pay check. They work for the government. Level doesn’t matter. They protect their own.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> Level doesn’t matter This level of civic and legal ignorance is a large part of why our country is in the mess that it is.
- wutwutwat 2y agoYes, thank you. It is my fault. Glad someone is calling it out!
- mjd 2y agoThe rule that illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible exists to disincentivize the police from obtaining evidence illegally. But if the police believed, in good faith, that a particular search was legal and reasonable, based on the fact that a judge authorized them to perform it, then excluding the resulting evidence doesn't serve that purpose. Update: This is not a new thing. The good-faith exception has been in U.S. law for decades. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good-faith_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good-faith_exception . You may not like it, but it's not something the judge just made up out of thin air.
- ty6853 2y agoIf I believe, in good faith, I have not broken the law. I should not be convicted.
- mjd 2y agoThis is not responsive. The police did not commit a crime here. Also note that there are good-faith defenses to all sorts of crimes, because (for example) there is a difference between knowingly defrauding a customer and just making a mistake.
- ceejayoz 2y ago> The police did not commit a crime here. They did, however, violate the Fourth Amendment. Per the court.
- mjd 2y agoThe Fourth Amendment was violated by the magistrate judge who issued the illegal warrant, not by the police officers who, acting in in good faith, executed it.
- RHSeeger 2y agoNo, the judge told them they were allowed to do it. The act of doing it is what violated the fourth amendment. If they hadn't acted on the warrant, the fourth amendment wouldn't have been violated. The judge was _wrong_, but the police are the ones that violated the amendment.
- ren_engineer 2y agocell tower dump and general geofence warrants to Google/Apple were how many Jan 6th protesters were found and charged. Courts threw out all their arguments about this very issue. This is standard practice and was celebrated as cops being smart here's a Washington Post article lamenting that Google was cutting back on how long they hold location data and how hundreds of people wouldn't have been prosecuted without it- https://archive.ph/r7afb https://archive.ph/r7afb
- dataflow 2y agoYou seem to be misrepresenting the situation. Ignorance of the law is not the defense they are invoking here. Ignorance of the law is when you claim you didn't follow the law because you were unaware it existed. This is a case where the court believes police did know the law and did try to follow it in good faith -- that's how they got to their conclusion that it's constitutional -- and that no court had yet reached a different conclusion in that district, until now. These are distinctly different situations.
- AdrianB1 2y agoIn most cases police is seen as serving the government and having all sorts of protections from sovereign immunity (confirmed in a case when a SWAT team partly destroyed the wrong house), qualified immunity (invented by SCOTUS, there is no such law) and practical legal immunity based on the fact that DAs rarely prosecute and even juries rarely find them guilty when prosecuted. This is why the ignorance of the law is accepted in so many cases as a defense for police, but not for citizens.
- anon6362 2y agoUS police, in effect, are a lawless, violent, honorless, untouchable, mafia who protect and serve primarily a landed aristocracy. In some ultra-exclusive communities, city police are literally reduced to Dashers and grocery getters. Similar venues and communities in the States also pay for hybrid PMC/LE QRFs who roll with battle rattle more than body armor and long guns.
- cyberax 2y agoDude, lay off the bong pipe. > In some ultra-exclusive communities, city police are literally reduced to Dashers and grocery getters Care to name a few?
- TheJoeMan 2y agoNot OP, but have you heard the craziness of Indian Creek Village in Miami? [1]. Their police force is 15 for a community of 41 homes[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Creek,_Florida https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Creek,_Florida [2] https://www.indiancreekvillagefl.gov/police/police-staff-directory https://www.indiancreekvillagefl.gov/police/police-staff-dir...
- cyberax 2y agoAnd where does it say that they bring groceries?
- lazystar 2y agoread between the lines; this is the Kohberger case. > the Court will not order any evidence suppressed. this keeps him from getting off scott free