3 ms·
"under the supervision of a court order" A court order is not a warrant. This is the heart of the discussion you are trying to get into. The 4th amendment is v
by arca_vorago 13y ago
"under the supervision of a court order"
A court order is not a warrant. This is the heart of the discussion you are trying to get into. The 4th amendment is very clear:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
If we allow a court order or a subpoena to continue to be all that LEO/LEA's to need to get whatever information they want, they will stop going to the courts for warrants, and worse, they will end up doing FISA style bulk orders/subpoena's.
Bottom line, if you have probable cause, get a fucking warrant, else, fuck off. (and companies should be requiring warrants for access to customer information too, not just setting up a pay portal for LEA's to peruse at leisure.)
- jasomill 13y agoA search warrant is a particular type of court order; a subpoena is another. As far as I know, there isn't really any overlap: search warrants authorize law enforcement to conduct searches, subject to fourth amendment restrictions; subpoenas compel parties to deliver documents or testimony, subject to fifth amendment restrictions.
- snowwrestler 13y agoJust replace the term "court order" with "warrant" above if it makes my point clearer. The opinion that kicked off this sub-thread is that all wiretaps should be illegal. "All." That would also eliminate wiretaps that would be authorized under a warrant.