Slashdot Mirror
SCOTUS To Weigh Smartphone Searches By Police
schwit1 writes "The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide whether police can search an arrested criminal suspect's cell phone without a warrant in two cases that showcase how the courts are wrestling to keep up with rapid technological advances. Taking up cases from California and Massachusetts arising from criminal prosecutions that used evidence obtained without a warrant, the high court will wade into how to apply older court precedent, which allows police to search items carried by a defendant at the time of arrest, to cell phones."
Can we hope for the proper decision (that police need a warrant)?
Doesn't mention phones, so there is no right to them.
In fact, he's pretty sure they're witchcraft.
But with this bunch of idiots on SCOTUS you never know.
Police should be free to search the physical device, for example, remove the battery cover, take it out of the case, etc, but not able to search the data contained within the device or its memory cards without a warrant.
If there is enough evidence for arrest, then there is enough evidence TO GET A GODDAMN WARRANT. Does the Fourth Amendment mean nothing to ANYONE anymore?
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
A pin or pattern / gesture lock is useless if the cops have the phone. They DO have tools to render such trivial things useless. They DO use those tools. I have seen the little box with the multitude of connectors being attached to a phone, and then the phone is unlocked, data dumped, and sorted through. Encryption, strong, non manufacturer based encryption, is the only thing close to safe.
In the wild there are no dumb lions tigers or bears. Only humanity subsidizes the continued existence of the stupid.
If the phone is locked up with a PIN they can't force you to divulge that information without a warrant, correct?
the world has changed in the last 12 years that you've had your head buried in the sand... nowadays police don't need warrants for anything (at most they might follow up the paperwork later with back dated warrants etc).
possession is now 100% of the law, so if the police sieze your phone, they can do whatever they want with it and there is nothing you can do about that. if the phone is locked, they either get what they want directly from the carrier or they threaten you with the thought of enjoying cuban cuisine for the rest of your life.
It's not that complicated, damn it.
Seriously? How on earth does anything you just said magically erase the US Constitution?
That smartphone represents, just as you said, access to huge amounts of information about the suspect. As well as information about innocent third parties that quite possibly had nothing to do with the crime.
You're supporting the idea of fishing expeditions into a person's digital space.
Arrest does not imply guilt. A member of the Judiciary should always be consulted regarding, and allowed to limit, the scope of any search of a person's effects and papers.
So, NO. There is not always enough evidence to justify the full and complete invasion of privacy of a citizen that is innocent until being proved guilty. If there really is a justifiable reason to invade that privacy than the police can convince a judge to do it.
Don't be a douchenozzle that enables their asshattery please.
There is never an acceptable reason to violate due process and PERFORM ANY ACTION WITHOUT A WARRANT .
Warrant, warrant, warrant, W A R R A N T!
It's a well conceived check and balance against tyranny ever present in a law enforcement organization. Don't give up something so valuable to the citizens over such stupid reasons.
I think it largely has to do with ignorance.
The poster holds a rather unsophisticated view that allows them to see the police's reasonable and justified need for access to that information as something correct and desirable.
The 4th doesn't mean anything to the poster since they don't understand the basics taught to people in Civic's class. That being, the ostensibly simple concept of having a member of the Judiciary act as a check and balance against the needs of the Executive.
Nobody is saying that the police should not have access to that data. They absolutely should and I can totally understand that it would be very useful to solving crimes. What the proponents completely miss is the understanding of what a warrant is .
That's the real problem. How many people understand what the heck a warrant even is anymore?
Unwarranted access to a phone doesn't sound like that big a deal.
The phone component has become a minor feature of today's Galaxy S5 or iPhone 5. The device is computer as powerful if not more than your desktop or laptop 10 years ago. More memory, faster processor, camera, video/audio recorder, movie and song player, ability to run applications, etc.
In 10 years who knows what they will be able to do and what more will be stored on them.
Am I the only one who sees the word SCROTUM every time /. uses SCOTUS?
Ah, decided to go with "douchenozzle" anyway, I see.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
Only like the greatest hairband EVAR!
....oh.....I may have made your case for you.....
If there is enough evidence for arrest, there is enough evidence to see what recent contact information, phone calls and text messages are on a cell phone.
No...... because no evidence is required to arrest or detain someone, only suspicion of "substantial chance" or "fair probability" that there might be a specific criminal activity, the person is involved with. The phone might contain personal information, or information that could be incriminating in a manner unrelated to the basis for searching it: Illegal fishing expedition.
Since there was no warrant documenting the police officer's hunch, or reason for the search or suspected criminal activity, the suspicion can be modified, to whatever the phone suggests!
A search requires obtaining a warrant which shall not issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation describing the particular thing to be searched for.
A warrant is the proper standard, for breaking an encryption lock box and rummaging around in someone else's effects, without their cooperation.
Even a warrant should be insufficient to compel the suspect to disclose passwords or decryption keys, or penalize the suspect for refusing, however.
Again, if there is reason to believe someone is a drug courier (because, say, you find drugs on him) it should be fairly trivial to get a warrant for the phone. What's the problem with that?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Younger generations don't seem to care? It seems to me like younger generations are the ONLY ones that care. The older generations are the ones that got us here.
Don't put shit on the youth. They're active. They care. OUR apathy and ignorance got us here.
If you want to allow the police to look through your phone without a warrant, you're more than welcome to. I would appreciate it if you'd leave the rest of us out it.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
The key word there is "nearly." We have a name for the exceptions: they're called "civil rights violations!"
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Some people don't encrypt their phones, but the police should still need a warrant to search them. The police don't get to search your house just because you forgot to lock your doors.
Unfortunately you are incorrect.
Several neighbors had their houses burglarized. One neighbor found their TV for sale on Craigslist. They called the police in the city that the burglary took place in, that city PD had him contact the seller, that was a mile and a half over just into an adjacent city, so it was set up with that adjacent city's PD to meet the seller. Unfortunately the seller came out of his apartment with the hot TV, not letting anyone inside to see all of the other stuff that he had listed on CL. Despite arresting him with stolen merchandise they could not get a warrant to search his apartment.
I do not think that this was right, but it does demonstrate that it is not always possible to get a warrant even when the circumstances should be blindingly obvious.
I think that a warrant should be necessary to search someone's cellphone at any time, not just at arrest. Traffic stops, border entry, "immigration checkpoints", any reason. Mind you, if someone has been arrested and the investigation and charges against them indicate either conspiracy (like the fence for the stolen TV) or multiple perpetrators then it probably should be shall-issue for warrants for communications devices, but if a crime doesn't meet that standard then it should be much harder to get a warrant.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
So why not skip all the bullcrud and use common sense and let cops do their job.
Because "all the bullcrud" is there to help keep the cops from abusing their power! By getting a warrant, they are (at least in theory) affirming that they have probable cause to conduct a search. If we were to let your "common sense" take over, then the cops could search people for whatever reason they felt like, probable cause be damned. Now, the vast majority of them may in fact be sane, rational, and fair with when they conduct searches without a warrant. However, there are plenty of crooked cops who will use it as an excuse to harass people. THIS is why we have the requirement for a warrant. Read the goddamn Bill of Rights sometimes. Half of the stuff in there should be common sense, but it's there because power can and WILL be abused without some safeguard!
So why not skip all the bullcrud and use common sense and let cops do their job.
That "bullcrud" is called Due Process and the Constitution of the United States of America.
"Nearly 100%" doesn't cut it. You're being a douchenozzle right now.
If it was your freedom at risk, why would you elect to remove the Judiciary oversight from your interaction with law enforcement?
Another question:
You may feel that way, but why would you deny me my Constitutional right to privacy in my effects and papers?
The position you hold is not reasonable, or rational, and basically amounts to "due process and oversight is so hard. I have to like convince a judge that my logic is correct".
In other words, you strongly disagree with the idea of peer review.
Those checks and balances were created by the founding fathers for a reason. Not just to fuck with law enforcement and make their lives harder.
That's an excellent question. No matter what answer you get, it won't be right in everybody's eyes. It's controversial.
As I understand it from my studies, "effects" was intended originally to mean physical belongings. Considering that persons, houses, and papers were already covered specifically, "effects" was a sort of "everything else". One decent example I've been told was "everything you'd take with you moving to a new home". In the 18th century, there was no general expectation of day-to-day privacy. Walls weren't soundproof, gossip was the primary entertainment, and world news was remote and unimportant compared to the neighbors' sins.
It's important to understand that the real coverage for information was supposed to come from the protection of "papers". Finance records, communication, and bills of sale all relied on paper. It was so easy to steal someone's horse and flee to the next town that someone's papers were effectively a record of their entire life and wealth. If one's papers were to be taken for legal examination, their livelihood would be extremely vulnerable, even if the person weren't actually arrested.
Let's not forget that our founding fathers were really rebels turned paranoid by the oppression of life in a British colony.
The British would, under the guise of "searching", ransack the home or business of anyone who offended the local rulers (governors, commanders, and so forth). The physical belongings of the victim would be seized, and the all-important papers affirming ownership would be taken for examination. Consider a farmer losing his tools and livestock right before a planting... his family would be dead within the year. It's the perfect tool for an oppressive government agent, keeping up the appearances of serving society while really just eliminating political opponents.
Of course, as the US matured and our police didn't end up exterminating families on a whim (often), the extreme fear that inspired the Fourth Amendment has subsided. The original meaning of "effects" is really rather unrelated to modern life.
Instead, SCOTUS has examined what the modern equivalent would be. Today, our lives are based less around the physical goods we own, but more what information we know. "Effects" is now held to include current information, while "papers" is more applicable to permanent records. Just as one may have given away belongings in the 1700s, one can now give away information easily. On the other hand, if someone wants to keep belongings or information, it is reasonable that they must make a basic effort to protect them. Belongings shouldn't be left abandoned far from someone's own home, and private information shouldn't be revealed publicly to still be considered private.
This is where the NSA gets its wiggle-room from. The information they're gathering is spread through publicly-accessible networks, so it's public, so they're not doing any Fourth-Amendment-Applicable searching. Of course, this "public" information isn't really available en masse to anybody else, but since that's just a matter of price, it still counts as public, right? SCOTUS hasn't decided yet, so that question is still up in the air.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Judges can be woken up, and if we have so much crime that we need to start hiring and paying judges to work grave yard shifts we have much bigger problems.
At that point let's just put society to rest and create Judge Dredd.
All of your examples pale in comparison to the protections afforded by judicial oversight. It's my RIGHT to have that judge woken up and asked if the logic and reasoning behind the violation of my privacy is warranted.
Interesting how that word is used. An action can be "warranted". That's what a warrant means. Somebody designated by the citizens and trained to be impartial evaluated the situation and said the invasion of my privacy was warranted and in the best interests of society.
With respect, I FUCKING WANT THAT.
Don't take away my right to have a judge involved before the cops can even attempt to violate my rights, haul my ass off to jail for forced enemas, colonoscopies, beatings, jail rapes, etc.
Let's keep due process dude. It's a really good idea.
The cell phone is the new notepad or scrap of paper that the criminal is carrying.
Maybe so. However, it also represents scraps of paper that are held in numerous other locations, and information that has nothing to do with the crime at hand.
Nothing you said even for a microsecond excuses your desire to eliminate due process. Remember, I'm not arguing that you can't get it. Only that I want a judge to say that the getting of my data is warranted.
You have the same back asswards logic that the NSA uses to justify mass surveillance. We *could* be ohh that much safer if we just got rid of due process and violated everyone's privacy in real time forever. All of the criminal text messages would be seen instantly!! We could even create a "precog" division for rapid response and be at the drug drop *before* the criminals get there.
No dude. The risks and dangers to our society from such invasions of privacy are so much more dangerous than whatever security you think you gained with it.
Once again, for the 2nd time in this post, if you really think you need it, just ask for a WARRANT.
A WARRANT allows you get that information you want because the logic and reasoning you have for getting it is determined to be WARRANTED.
You have not presented any logical reason whatsoever for getting rid of my due process rights.
Yes, let's let the cops do their job. That includes GETTING A GOD-DAMNED WARRANT.
The rest of your commentary is so laughably idiotic that I hope no one wastes any time responding to it.
You seem to agree with everything I said but want the hassle of the warrant in situations that you agree are nearly 100% likely to get one. So why not skip all the bullcrud and use common sense and let cops do their job.
It's called 'Due Process' and is the only thing keeping you from arbitralily being swept up and jailed when they 'round up the usual suspects'.
Sure traffic cops and beat cops catch a lot of flak, but no cop is looking to search your cellphone for speeding or littering. So I have to be a little curious to know what oddball corner case that you have in mind that would involve an arrest, but wouldn't be a serious crime and wouldn't be a situation where the police were likely to get a warrant --- and whatever creative corner-case you have in mind can't be more than a few percent of those types of arrests. An arrest means enough evidence to be strongly considered to being charged with a crime, not just casually annoying some guy who a cop wrote a parking ticket.
You're assuming every cop is a Boy Scout and wouldn't think of tainting evidence. May I remind you of the most famous instance regarding manufactured/manipulated evidence, a double homicide in Brentwood? The jury was convinced that he did it, but since evidence was tainted to the point where they couldn't even prove what day it was, the jury was forced to aquit based on the remaining untainted inconclusive evidence, and since double jeopardy prohibited a retrail and there was insufficient untainted evidence to support a guilty verdict or present at a retrial if the trial was ruled a mistrial, it had to go to jury where they aquitted him. Did he do it or not? I have no clue, and now, neither will anybody else other than the suspect and the victims, and the victims ain't talking.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Actually, the 4th defines what is reasonable WRT search and seizure, and that is: probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, describing the place(s) to be searched and the thing(s) to be searched for, which stipulations, when met, are the minimum standard for issuance of a warrant, and the WARRANT is what says, finally, that it's ok to search and/or sieze, and what, and where. Until that warrant is issued pursuant to the above conditions, you don't have a "reasonable" search, what you have is government out of control.
Here's the thing to internalize: The 4th defines what is reasonable. It's not about what you or I or a cop thinks is reasonable; there's a clear standard, and THAT is what is reasonable until or unless an amendment changes the 4th. No sane or sustainable argument can be made for the presence of the detailed requirements in the 4th if they are to be ignored. And clearly, they are not to be ignored.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Time constraints, for one. Judges sleep, while the contacts can schedule crimes any time they want.
Lost opportunity, for two. Criminals can easily just disperse and hide if a scheduled check-in is missed.
It's unnecessary, for three. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches, but if there's a "reason to believe [whatever]", it's reasonable by definition. That reason may be debated in court later, of course, such as if the "drugs" turn out to be something else, but working with the facts known at the time, the search would be allowed.
No. No. NO. An arrest after a search without a warrant can be overturned by any defense attorney worth their salt. If following due process inconveniences the cops and the legal establishment TOO FUCKING BAD, it's not there for them, it's there for the common citizen.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
The police can detain you if they believe they have enough evidence to do so. However, the 4th requires that to search you, or seize your property, they need a warrant. So, if required, you, and they, should wait for one while they supply said evidence to the judge.
Yes, I know they just do whatever the fuck they want, but they are wrong, and the 4th spells out exactly how they are wrong.
Until or unless the 4th is amended, we're talking about government out of control.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
the world has changed in the last 12 years that you've had your head buried in the sand... nowadays police don't need warrants for anything
I thought GP was going to cite what I was thinking about in that quote.
They do indeed still need a warrant. It's the law. If you keep everything encrypted you are protected from any law officer under the delusion that they don't need a warrant.
Let's face it, law officers aren't the brightest people. In fact you are automatically disqualified from being in law enforecement if your IQ is high enough.
tldr; use encryption, protect yourself from dumbfucks.
You didn't either. What I was looking for is what I've heard about forensic tools that are now available to any cop, if I recall correctly, where they just plug in your phone and sluuuuurp! Done!
So you don't even need to unlock it, regardless of whether it's iOS or Android based. Since the US government has agreements with all those companies and there are backdoors in everything, the war is lost if the device leaves your hands, being it the good guys, or the bad guys.
http://www.androidauthority.com/xry-software-crack-ios-android-70132/ (plus some irony in the comment section given those were made in pre-Snowden days of 2012)
http://www.hotforsecurity.com/blog/us-police-forensic-tools-can-collect-suspects-smartphone-data-without-warrant-aclu-says-5574.html
Because given misunderstandings, the only good guy when it comes to your personal data is your own self. Nothing will stop "parallel construction" from creating a probable cause to view your data in some new light.
In the days of landlines, *everyone* had multiple people using the same phone. I still do that to this day with my smartphone. Friends, siblings, etc. use my phone all the time, and why shouldn't they? You can't assume anything on my smartphone was done by me alone. Same with my PC. Back before cell phones, if someone ran out of gas and walked to the nearest house to borrow their phone, it wasn't unusual at all. I was also always happy to show off my Commodore 64 and Amiga to all my friends or relatives. Why are we assumed not to have this privilege anymore? At what point did we *become* our phone or PC? I'm not a phone number or IP address, I'm a human being. Don't I have the right to be courteous enough to let others use my equipment anymore?
How are the police supposed to know that a crime was committed if they don't search every bedroom and tap every phone?
Learn to love Alaska
From the confused US reception of the Stallone movie of that name there seemed to be a lot of people that thought the 2000AD Fascist society that Dredd was a part of was a good thing :(
There's a very strong swing towards authoritarianism lately from people that seem to see the US Constitution as just a piece of paper. If it gets in the way of those they think should be King they ignore it (eg. the response to Snowden showed many think their "lords and masters" are more important than the violations of the constitution on show).
I wouldn't think 10 in 100 would be able to name the amendments. I don't think anyone in Congress has heard of the 9th or 10th Amendments. And nearly everyone I talked to about Amendments gets pretty fuzzy after the second, especially the 3rd is so irrelevant.
I'd say more like 1 in 100 would be able to name the first 10 amendments.
Learn to love Alaska
It's nice that you want 24-hour immediate access to a judge before every police action, but I want a pony. With respect, what makes you so important that your due process must be immediate, rather than speedy? If the on-call judge is busy with another call, then what? Does a burglar caught red-handed get to run away because the police have no warrant to arrest him?
Nobody is asking for 24-hour immediate action before *every* police action - and if you want a pony you can go buy one. A judge is not needed to arrest a burglar "caught red-handed", if the police catch him in the action of burglarizing someone, they catch him climbing out of the window of someone's house with the proverbial bag of silverware, they have no need of a judge to arrest him.
They *do* need to get a judge's signed warrant afterwards if they choose to break the door of his house in and search his house for other stolen goods - and what would the "urgency" be for doing that, that they would need to do it right then and there (say he's "caught red-handed" at 2am and arrested)? They can hold him in a jail cell for the night, get a warrant from a judge in the morning, and search his home (presuming the judge agrees with their request). They have no need/reason to search his cell phone unless, for some reason, they think/feel that whatever is on that cell phone is going to lead to something more urgent (imminent destruction of evidence, murder, kidnapping, etc), in which case they can wake a judge up - if it's not urgent then there is no reason to wake a judge up vs. just waiting a few hours until a judge is available. It puts the burden of *proving* that they have a reason to search for evidence on the police, which is where the burden is supposed to be.
To do otherwise says that the police can just go to the local "bad neighborhood", walk door-to-door and knock on the door, when someone answers say "you are under arrest for drug dealing", slap the cuffs on them, and then "oh, now we have 'probable cause'" (when they had, and still have, no proof of any wrongdoing), walk into the house and start searching for something to 'make their case' against the person. The point of the warrant being, when it gets to court and the judge asks 'why did you suspect they were dealing drugs, did you observe people coming and going, did you receive a tip, did you send an undercover officer in who bought from them?' if the answer is "no, we just assumed that they lived in a bad neighborhood they must be doing something wrong", even if they found 20kg of cocaine in the house, it'll be thrown out of court - "poison fruit" because they had *no* reasonable suspicion of them doing anything criminal other than "where they lived".
In your example of the burglar, if they catch him 'red handed' there is no reason for a warrant to arrest him if he was caught in process of doing the crime. If, however, they merely suspect that he is the burglar, they have not 'caught him in the act', then they need to prove it to a judge and get a warrant to be able to search his home for stolen goods as proof. Or, they can do real police work, watch his home and tail him going out and burglarizing someone, and arrest him in the act, if they can't get enough 'proof' to satisfy a judge for a warrant.
Unless you believe that, despite being a decent law-abiding citizen yourself I'm sure, that the police should be able to corner you on the street for no reason, "arrest you" for any charge they feel like with no proof of anything, and then search your phone, car, home, shoot your dog in the process perhaps, maybe find that $1000 you have stashed for an emergency and 'confiscate' it, and then just say "oh well, we made a mistake" without ever having *any* reason to ever suspect you of any wrongdoing in the first place?
Unfortunately the seller came out of his apartment with the hot TV, not letting anyone inside to see all of the other stuff that he had listed on CL. Despite arresting him with stolen merchandise they could not get a warrant to search his apartment.
Why the hell should the lone fact of arresting a person with one (or even multiple) item of stolen merchandise be reasonable cause to search that person's home?
That's the same kind of logic that leads to civil asset forfeiture laws: you've been arrested on suspicion of breaking one law so we can assume you've probably violated a bunch of others until you prove to us that you didn't. Without sworn statements from anyone else claiming that the other advertised items were stolen, there was insufficient reason to violate the sanctity of the seller's home with a search.
Sadly, an arrest is not an objective process. It only means that a cop thought it would be a good idea to arrest someone, that's basically all it means. Now, of course in most cases, I'd hope, it means that the cop has some very good reason to believe the person he arrested broke a law.
But what keeps a crooked cop from arresting someone he thought has slept with his wife to get a hold of that person's cellphone to see whether he can find some pictures that prove it?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's not unreasonable at all - the guy was arrested for selling stolen goods on Craig's list, it's not unreasonable to suspect that the other items he has advertised have been stolen.
It's not like he was arrested for breaking a red light and wanting to search his house - that is not acceptable.
Correct, the expectation was that he had more stolen merchandise in his apartment, and since images of the items for sale on Craigslist lacked visible serial numbers it was not possible to compare them.
Also more importantly, the burglaries in the neighborhood stopped cold after his arrest, which provides more credence that he was more involved than having unknowingly bought stolen goods to resell.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Unfortunately the seller came out of his apartment with the hot TV, not letting anyone inside to see all of the other stuff that he had listed on CL. Despite arresting him with stolen merchandise they could not get a warrant to search his apartment.
I do not think that this was right,
I think it is possible, given the description, for that to be the right decision. You don't mention whether the authorities had any evidence that he had a history of negligently receiving stolen goods before, or that any of the other Craig's List listings were stolen. It is possible to conceive an innocent story that matches those events.
I have purchased several tired, used guitars recently from Craig's List. I have fixed them up and will now sell some of them. If it turns out that one of them is stolen, I would argue that does not amount to probable cause that I am warehousing stolen merchandise. Assuming I have a credible explanation for having one stolen guitar, it seems like it is substantially more likely that I am an innocent collateral actor and a warrant is not justified. Or, slightly differently; I would fight the warrant(*) and I think I would win.
I don't know the specifics of the story you are recounting, so your perception may be well founded. Based on the brief synopsis you present, however, it is possible to construct a backstory that would not support a warrant to my mind. I think that is one of the challenges that often eludes us in analysis of suspicious behavior; to consider how likely it is for an innocent person to have stumbled under the inspector's glass.
* if, for example, they found something else illegal, like a refrigerator full of murdered mimes, and attempted to convict based on plain view doctrine
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
You got a citation?
I used this search:
craigslist tv warrant stolen goods
I found this story, police got warrant:
http://www.krem.com/news/regional/spokane-county/Local-man-tracks-down-stolen-goods-using-Craigslist--228170651.html
warrant issued: http://www.wsaw.com/home/headlines/Plover-Man-Accuse-of-Selling-Stolen-Property-on-Craigslist-234155941.html
warrant issued: http://www.king5.com/news/crime/Guns-and-robbery-kits-Craigslist-stolen-items-bust-192359201.html
warrant issued: http://www.abcnews4.com/story/22806385/craigslist-posting-leads-to-recovery-of-stolen-property
warrant issued:
http://www.ksat.com/news/craigslist-post-leads-to-thousands-of-dollars-of-stolen-property/-/478452/20969968/-/8tktj8z/-/index.html
There are tons of instances where people selling stolen goods have been the subject of search warrants. It would be interesting to see what specific set of details made your anecdote unique enough to avoid a warrant -- but I can't find it.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Dredd is a great mix of authority and street justice, thats why people find it appealing. No one REALLY wants a Dredd or even Robocop (as programmed by OCP).
Good-bye
>, especially the 3rd is so irrelevant
Not true. There is a civil case ini the northeast where somebody is suing the police on 3rd amendment grounds. The police wanted to use this guys house as a part of some police operation. He refused but the cops intruded anyway and the guy got arrested.
What these people arguing for doing away with the checks and balances don't seem to remember:
Anything can be declared illegal, at any time; all it takes is a little Moral Panic judiciously aimed at legislators. YOUR presently-legal activity could be outlawed, and you too could become subject to random search and seizure. How do you feel about that warrant now, eh?
Don't think so? look at the history of marijuana, formerly a perfectly legal thing to grow and possess.
This applies equally to court decisions and preservation of rights:
"You should not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered."
-- Lyndon Johnson, 36th President of the U.S.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?