Slashdot Mirror
The Government Can No Longer Track Your Cell Phone Without a Warrant
Jason Koebler (3528235) writes The government cannot use cell phone location data as evidence in a criminal proceeding without first obtaining a warrant, an appeals court ruled today, in one of the most important privacy decisions in recent memory. "In short, we hold that cell site location information is within the subscriber's reasonable expectation of privacy," the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled. "The obtaining of that data without a warrant is a Fourth Amendment violation."
Doesn't mean they won't keep doing it anyway.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
Just because an appeal court judge rules that the government can not do something it doesn't mean that the government will oblige to that ruling
The Obama administration is no longer bound by any law, nor the Constitution of the United States - they can overstep anything and overrule anything
They can lie to the congress and get away with it
They can set terrorists free without having to consult the congress, or the courts
The Obama administration does not care about any judge / court / law, because to them, they are ABOVE IT ALL !
Nope, it IS only binding in the Eleventh Circuit. One of the reasons cases get to the Supreme Court is because there's a circuit split; some circuits go one way, some go the other, and the SC decides which should apply to the whole country.
Not really; the exclusionary principle is based on the premise that the courts will punish law enforcement for knowingly evading their constitutional responsiblities by not letting them use whatever evidence they wrongfully obtained. Until binding precedential caselaw is established, law enforcement can be considered to not have known they were required to get a warrant before, so any evidence before that point would not be excluded.
For example, the cops generally need a warrant to enter your house to search for drugs unless an owner grants permission to the search. If you're staying over at my house while I'm away, the cops ask you for permission to search the place thinking it is your house, and you say yes, anything they find is admissible because they had a good faith belief they were conducting a legal search.
They actually have a name for it now, "Parallel Construction". Its where they use illegal evidence to locate a suspect/evidence, then they use some excuse (traffic stop, low level crime, etc) to search the suspect, and then lie/"forget" about where the initial information came from. An example is using illegal phone, email or internet taps to find a suspected drug runner, then pulling over that person when they're out driving to search their car for any evidence.
Well no, not exactly. I didn't word it very well but when I said "overruled by another Federal Court" I meant that another circuit can decide differently. And sometimes they do; but they need to provide a new decision and explain why their interpretation is more correct than what they are overriding. And overriding previous precedence isn't something other Federal circuits do lightly so unless they are willing to do so this is binding on future cases similar to this one.
It's only once one circuit disagrees that this needs to be appealed upwards, until than all Federal Circuits will look to this decision when making similar decisions.
But, hey, I'm just interested in civics, IANAL, so if I'm just splitting hairs here, my apologies.
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
Well IAAL (in the 11th circuit even) so I tend to get a little OCD about legal terms. You're right it has precedential value in other circuits and any court addressing the issue will take this case seriously, though circuits frequently do just explicitly disagree with other circuits so I'd be more comfortable once this gets to the Supreme Court.
Poor baby. I feel so sorry for him. Not.
Davis was convicted of participating in a string of armed robberies in the Miami area in 2010. His accomplices testified against him, saying he carried a gun during their crimes and discharged it at a dog that chased them after one of their burglaries.
On Feb. 9 of this year he was convicted of committing seven armed robberies at fast-food restaurants, a Walgreens pharmacy and other commercial establishments in the Miami area from August to October of 2010.
So essentially, he decided to carry a deadly weapon, and stick said weapon in the face of some teenage cashier at Wendy's, so he could make off with the <$100 that was in the drawer at the time. And we're supposed to feel sorry for him? Here's two hints:
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.