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
[–] 1 point 4 months ago (7 children)

They can illegally obtain the data all they'd like, this ruling means that the data obtained like that will be suppressed and not allowed to be shown to a jury.

Ignoring that would result in a mistrial and that decision would be upheld all the way up the chain via appeals.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    Yeah, but you and I both know once they've identified a target, no matter what the means, they'll use that identification to build a case that doesn't involve the location information... Arguing "inevitable discovery" the whole way.

    And either way, they'll prosecute.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    As you and I both know, a case built on illegally obtained evidence is also illegal.

    They can present whatever arguments they'd like and a judge can read the above Supreme Court case, rule that their case is built on illegal evidence and dismiss it. If that judge does not the the judges in the court of appeals can overturn the lower court.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (4 children)

    All you have to do to get evidence admitted is show you could have arrived at it via a different (legal) path.

    Usually it takes a really good lawyer to argue fruit of the poisonous tree successfully.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (3 children)

    This ruling confirms that there is no other legal path to obtain that data which isn't a warrant.

    Of course, you're right that there are other ways to prove location, but the digital evidence (as in this case) would be suppressed and the jury would not hear it.

    The case that launched this Supreme Court decision is pretty textbook poison fruit. The subsequent search warrant which obtained the gun and cash was obtained specifically because of the geofence warrant. The lower court still has to determine the legality of the original warrant, but if it was found to be unreasonable (likely, overly broad) then all of the evidence including the custodial confession would be tossed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    This ruling confirms that there is no other legal path to obtain that data which isn't a warrant.

    The supreme court ruling doesn't go this far.

    The ruling says that a search occurred when LEOs obtained the geofenced location data from a service provider. The case was sent back down to the circuit court to determine whether or not a warrant was required.

    There are various exceptions that allow the government to conduct warrantless searches under the 4th amendment. For example:

    • the "frisk" in a Terry stop to search for weapons.
    • search with consent
    • search incident to arrest
    • hot pursuit and exigent circumstance allow police to follow suspects into a place, but not usually to then go looking for stuff.
    • searches within the (generous) border zone for border enforcement
    • searches at airport security and similar contexts
    • public roadway DUI checkpoints and other road safety checkpoints that stop all drivers.

    It's not obvious that any of those apply to this case, but maybe they do. The circuit court will decide.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    That's fair, I was adding a bit of my own judgment into that statement.

    I believe that the circuit court will find that this is a typical search, requiring a warrant, but the Supreme Court didn't explicitly say that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent