499
Supreme Court rules that broad cell phone location data sweeps require warrants (www.nbcnews.com)
submitted 4 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
35 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 4 months ago (11 children)

If they didn't get a warrant then this ruling means that every court must require that the evidence be suppressed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [+] -1 points 4 months ago* (10 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago* (9 children)

    The President doing illegal things has no bearing on the admissibility of evidence.

    The judge decides what is allowed to be used at trial. If the prosecution ignore the judge and presents it anyway then the judge rules the case a mistrial. If the judge allows it then the court of appeal would overturn the ruling.

    This doesn't stop them from illegally obtaining the evidence, but it provides the ruling that prevents it from being used at trial.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [+] -3 points 4 months ago* (8 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago* (7 children)

    Are you asking for help understating what I wrote? Or do you think that sarcastically attacking strawmen of your own creation is an argument?

    Corrupt judges and bad decisions are why courts of appeal exist. These courts use multiple judges chosen at random specifically to prevent the kind of collusive behaviour that you're implying.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [+] -1 points 4 months ago* (6 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    Yes, if the world were a John Grisham novel, some nefarious group could blackmail multiple judges across all levels of the appellate provesd, rig the system to ensure they're all assigned the case (by blackmailing the clerk of clurt) in order to ensure that they would have a chance to show illegally obtained location evidence to the jury, all 12 of whom are also blackmailed (why not?) to prove a person's phone was at a specific location.

    Do you have any other fantasy scenarios that need co-signing?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [+] -1 points 4 months ago* (4 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    I'm talking about the location evidence that is the topic of the Supreme Court ruling linked in the OP of this thread where you're crafting your bad faith arguments.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •