Posted on 03/08/2022 8:12:11 AM PST by Navy Patriot
A federal judge last week ruled that a cellphone dragnet used to find bank robbery suspects was unconstitutional.
Judge M. Hannah Lauck, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, ruled Thursday that authorities violated the Constitution when they used Google location data to find people who were near the scene of a 2019 bank robbery, NBC News reported.
Lauck said the policing approach, by gathering information on innocent people without evidence that they might be suspects violated the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
why?
you’re out in public and can be seen by anyone else.
if it pinpoints people who walked into a bank to rob it, the that’s good detective work. A street view camera could do the same thing.
If you don’t want to broadcast where you are, don’t carry a device that broadcasts where you are.
I’m against it.
“… by gathering information on innocent people without evidence …”
They were gathering evidence about a bank robbery. Everyone at the bank at the time was a “suspect”.
Jim Comey, is that you?
This one is an ObamaStooge who graduated from Yale...
You’re okay with the police being able to search your phone location for no reason? That’s a very scary precedent. No way they’d ever abuse that...
I see we’ve got another one who is too stupid to make a counter point (which would be great to know, if I am wrong), but instead resorts to name calling.
It’s OK but no trophy for you.
It’s private location history. If they enough evidence that you may be the robber, they can use that evidence to get
a subpoena for your specific records for that specific time.
I used to work in law enforcement relations for a major cell phone company. One of the IT projects I worked on was a change to our subpoena response software to include in the subpoena ONLY information between the precise starting and ending times.
Before that project, they would print out the pages and then cover certain parts of the first and last page that included times not within the subpoena and recopy those pages with that data hidden.
Our government simply does not have the right to go after non-publicly displayed data, and that would include our google account data.
And a street view camera with facial recognition is also different. It shows who you are and what you did. And even then, I have challenges with them acquiring this info unless there is an actual crime being investigated, which would reasonably lead to them getting a judge to sign a subpoena for the data.
They are not ON YOUR PHONE, they are using cell data your ‘ phone broadcasts. The cell tower can ‘see’ you the same way a street video camera could.
I think that is different.
Not sure I quite see how this is bad. But I am open to consider counterpoints.
Anything except “you think that’s OK? then yer dum”
I think law enforcement should be able to get that information AFTER obtaining a warrant. A judge should be the arbiter or what is a reasonable search.
And I don’t think law enforcement should have any problem making the case to a judge.
“A bank robbery occurred at 10:00am on April fool’s day at this location. We want cell phone data on everyone in a one block radius of the bank for the time of the robbery and 24 hours prior to the robbery and 30 minutes after the robbery to help establish a list of possible suspects to compare to video footage and other evidence.”
As far as the Jan 6th Political Prisoners. Any such warrant should be limited to people on the capital grounds. Or in the immediate vicinity of crimes committed.
The fact that trespassing signs were removed and protesters were waived into the capital, and they were non-violent protesters, shouldn’t prevent the police from obtaining a warrant and the data.
But the facts should get the case thrown out by the prosecutors. Except for violence or vandalism. Those few should be prosecuted.
Mission Dark farady phone bag.
They do work
This seems like a red herring. Bank robberies are actually a crime that it is in the public interest to stop. If someone is in the area of the robbery its reasonable for police to know as they try to figure out who the robbers were...whether they were seem by camera, another person or by geo location. The civil rights problem starts where being in a protest is investigated as if it were a crime...especially when law enforcement try to entice the protesters into criminal trespass who were not otherwise intending to. The difference is civil rights problems in these two cases are extremely different.
They were gathering evidence about a bank robbery. Everyone at the bank at the time was a “suspect”.
Your last point is the most important, I think. If a crime is being or has been committed and is being investigated then street view cams, lip reading from afar, eyewitnesses, cell broadcast data are all valid.
Not fishing expeditions. This is always a slippery slope, I would agree.
Many of us grew up in a time when we heard Mobsters confess to all sorts of depravity over wiretaps that were then thrown out on various violations related to Constitutional rights.
The internet and the devices that connect us has thrown this into some grey areas that need to be fleshed out. It seems a free for all now.
Then they can get warrants for "everybody".
I am disgusted with lazy civil servant who want to invade my privacy and disregard our laws just because they do not want to do some work.
my first thought as well
Good.
Sounds like the movie 2000 Mules might have caused DS to try and cover their butts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.