dtrizzle

8 ms·

31.
by dtrizzle 11y ago
About subpoenaing the person who the data belongs to, I agree. However, realistically speaking, this is not an effective way to get the data. In my experience, someone who is about to be exposed and subjected to criminal liability would sim
32.
by dtrizzle 11y ago
About tipping the scales: In my view, as someone who is a criminal defense attorney who litigates cases every day, yes. But I imagine that is not the view of a well meaning principled privacy advocate. Before 180 days, you need a warrant.
33.
by dtrizzle 11y ago
No. There is no exception in the law for a defense trial subpoena. It bars both prosecution and defense subpoenas. See the law review article linked above.
34.
by dtrizzle 11y ago
No. That's the whole point. The defense can subpoena the video but the law would prevent the company from complying with the subpoena. The defense and DA subpoena power is the same. Thus, if the DA can't get it with a subpoena, ne
35.
by dtrizzle 11y ago
I know that the HN crowd supports this, but it can be a nightmare for a criminal defense attorney attempting to acquire exculpatory information. Remember, whenever a warrant is required to get data, that means the defendant cannot get store
36.
by dtrizzle 11y ago
I agree with you. My comment was more of a commentary on the unintended consequences of this: http://www.wired.com/2013/01/google-says-get-a-warrant/ On HN and most places on the internet, most people support
37.
by dtrizzle 11y ago
"If you were investigating a crime, you're in law enforcement." False. Defense attorneys and their investigators also investigate crimes. This realization shows why the broadening the warrant requirement can have perverse out
38.
by dtrizzle 12y ago
Most of the time, defendant's are not invited to testify. Many times, they have no idea that a grand jury investigation is taking place.
39.
by dtrizzle 12y ago
Yes. Infractions are crimes so yes. For the most part, they are not treated as crimes. You cannot be jailed based on an infraction. Most job applications I've seen typically explicitly exclude requiring information about past infractio
40.
by dtrizzle 12y ago
In CA, infractions are crimes so the reasonable doubt standard applies. See Cal. Pen. Code section 16. http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/16.html
41.
by dtrizzle 12y ago
My guess: 12 inch subwoofers and 26 inch rims.
42.
by dtrizzle 12y ago
No. Can't do AT&T (hate them). Can't do Android without the play store (no apps).
43.
CA man wins appeal, you can use Google Maps while driving.(petersesq.com)
4 points by dtrizzle 13y ago|1 comments
44.
by dtrizzle 13y ago
Texas is doing better than California on this issue: http://www.petersesq.com/2014/02/cell-phone-searches-ca-vs-t...
45.
by dtrizzle 13y ago
Law
46.
by dtrizzle 13y ago
I strongly consider attending one of these boot camps, but pulled out at the last minute because I became suspicious of their claims. I’m not saying the claims were untrue, but they were grand enough to make me nervous about dropping over $
47.
by dtrizzle 13y ago
Wait for the Nexus 5. Rumor is that it will be announced tomorrow.
48.
by dtrizzle 13y ago
wordpress
49.
by dtrizzle 13y ago
5th Amendment, not 4th.
50.
by dtrizzle 13y ago
I hate headlines like this. Wealth is not finite.
51.
by dtrizzle 13y ago
I don't believe there is a difference legally. Courts tend to disregard the label applied to an amount.
52.
by dtrizzle 13y ago
I’m an attorney and have been pondering for hours about whether this would permit one to break their contract. Certainly, if the fee was a tax, one couldn’t break their contract since neither party really can control what the government doe
53.
by dtrizzle 13y ago
I'm trying to find this fee on my bill. My AT&T bill labels every charge with a number. On your bill, is the new charge labeled or numbered? Edit: I found the notice of the charge. It's on left-middle side of page 2 of my April 2013 bil
54.
by dtrizzle 13y ago
Speaking of which, I need to buy a few Powerball tickets! http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/05/17/saturdays--550...
55.
by dtrizzle 13y ago
Too expensive. For $649, get an iPhone.
56.
by dtrizzle 14y ago
open-source it?
57.
by dtrizzle 14y ago
Several google tools don't have support for the standard 2-factor auth. Instead, you have to create a single use password for those devices. Watch the video on Cutts blog for info on how it works.
58.
by dtrizzle 15y ago
Since the standing issue was decided and made the rest of the case moot, the fair use analysis is dicta. Thus, it is not legal precedent. Even if the judge did decide the fair use issue, it's precedential value would be low - applying only
59.
by dtrizzle 15y ago
I rarely speak up on this issue because I'm sure most everyone in these parts disagrees, but I do prosecution and I believe it's important to at least see the other side of the issue. I understand why people want warrants. But I believe peo
60.
by dtrizzle 16y ago
Assuming you do charge a cover for men, this is a really good way to get sued. See Angelucci v. Century Supper Club, 158 P.3d 718 (CA 2007) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladies_night#California

More ›