I don't see anyone blindly supporting his "love of drones."
Link.
The difference is obviously actual surveillance vs a casual encounter. The question here is whether LE can actually walk into your private property and install surveillance equipment to spy on you without a warrant.
IMO, per the 4th amendment, that cons utes a search within private property and requires a warrant.
What obviously stinks even more in this particular case is that they did obtain a warrant 4 days after they recorded the video. So obtaining the warrant wasn't, apparently, a problem.
Another read on this would be that LE went on a illegal fishing expedition, and once they found something, they expedited the warrant they should've acquired in the first place.
Internet husband Obama
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.co...-phone-is.htmlAmarillo appeals court: 'A cell phone is not a pair of pants'
The Seventh Court of Appeals in Amarillo in a recent opinion (pdf) addressed the question, "May an officer conduct a warrantless search of the contents or stored data in a cell phone when its owner was required to relinquish possession of the phone as part of the booking or jailing process?" They said "No," at least barring "exigent cir stances or other recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement." Here's how attorney-blogger Paul Kennedy described the gist of the ruling:
In State v. Granville, No. 07-11-0415-CR (Tex.App.-- Amarillo 2012), the Amarillo Court of Appeals held that the warrantless search of a cell phone by a "stranger to an arrest" violates the Fourth Amendment. In its opinion, the court explained, in detail, why a cell phone is not a pair of pants.
The court explained that a cell phone is more like a computer and that the information contained within the memory of a cell phone provides a glimpse into the private life of the owner and that the use of passwords, encrypted programs and other security measures gave the user a reasonable expectation of privacy.
The court also took note that Mr. Granville's phone had to be turned on by the officer who decided he needed to snoop around and look at the photos stored on the phone. The fact that the phone had been turned off was another indication that Mr. Granville had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Finally the court addressed the issue of whether a pre-trial detainee (arrestee) has a privacy interest in his cell phone. Mr. Granville was arrested for a Class C misdemeanor (for those outside the Lone Star State, that is the equivalent of a traffic ticket). He was not going to be held in custody for long and he certainly wasn't the type of person that the ordinary citizen would think should be locked up. The court stated that, because a pre-trial detainee has the opportunity to post bond and get released that he has a greater privacy interest in his personal property than an inmate.
I leave y'all with this quote from the opinion:
While assaults upon the Fourth Amendment and article I, § 9 of the United States and Texas Cons utions regularly occur, the one rebuffed by the trial court here is sustained. A cell phone is not a pair of pants.
Because he is not a libertarian, obviously. His blind support of his political party with convenient assumptions supporting ideology despite protests to the contrary combined with his blatant racism and support of the eugenics of Galton smacks more of fascism than it does a libertarian ideal.
He just spouts this because of his parties of choice Grover Norquist schtick. He is a blind supprter of the ideologies of his party of choice to the exclusion of all other reason. He is a minion in every sense of the word.
This is not hyperbole either; if you think about it: everything I am saying is true. WC is not dangerous in and of himself. He lacks charisma and anything resembling initiative of thought but he could very easily be the pawn of dangerous men with his blatant excusemaking for both party and ideology.
What's odd about this thread is that a warrant is issued by a judge in the first place, so if one "approves" it's for all intents and purposes a warrant.
So can many 14 year olds if they wanted to.
They are not wasted, you can narrow the data once you decide whose monitoring is important: eg. once you decide LnGrrrR needs to be punished you pull up all his data and find every time he broke a law.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/27/ny...ogs.html?_r=1&When a cellphone is reported stolen in New York, the Police Department routinely subpoenas the phone’s call records, from the day of the theft onward. The logic is simple: If a thief uses the phone, a list of incoming and outgoing calls could lead to the suspect.
But in the process, the Police Department has quietly amassed a trove of telephone logs, all obtained without a court order, that could conceivably be used for any investigative purpose.
The call records from the stolen cellphones are integrated into a database known as the Enterprise Case Management System, according to Police Department do ents from the detective bureau. Each phone number is hyperlinked, enabling detectives to cross-reference it against phone numbers in other files.
The subpoenas not only cover the records of the thief’s calls, but also encompass calls to and from the victim on the day of the theft. In some cases the records can include calls made to and from a victim’s new cellphone, if the stolen phone’s number has been transferred, three detectives said in interviews.
Police officials declined to say how many phone records are contained in the database, or how often they might have led to arrests. But police do ents suggest that thousands of subpoenas have been issued each year, with each encompassing anywhere from dozens to hundreds of phone calls.
For example, T-Mobile, which has a smaller market share than some of its compe ors, like Verizon, fulfilled 297 police subpoenas issued in January 2012, according to a police do ent.
To date, phone companies have appeared willing to accede to the Police Department’s requests for large swaths of call records. Memos issued Sept. 28 by the chief of detectives, Phil T. Pulaski, instruct detectives to prepare subpoenas for stolen phones assigned to AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile or Metro-PCS. With these carriers, the police do not generally seek the victims’ consent; in fact, the subpoenas are executed without the victims’ knowledge. (It does not appear that subpoenas are issued when the stolen phone is served by Sprint Nextel. In those cases, detectives are instructed to ask the victim to fill out consent forms that authorize Sprint Nextel to release call records and location information to the police.)
“If large amounts of victim phone records are being collected and added to a searchable database, it’s very troubling,” said Michael Sussmann, a lawyer who represents wireless carriers, in a phone interview.
“We’re all used to the concept of growing databases of criminal information,” Mr. Sussmann, of the firm Perkins Coie, said, “but now you’re crossing over that line and drawing in victim information.”
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2014/03/stingray/Police in Florida have offered a startling excuse for having used a controversial “stingray” cell phone tracking gadget 200 times without ever telling a judge: the device’s manufacturer made them sign a non-disclosure agreement that they say prevented them from telling the courts.
The shocking revelation, uncovered by the American Civil Liberties Union, came during an appeal over a 2008 sexual battery case in Tallahassee in which the suspect also stole the victim’s cell phone. Using the stingray — which simulates a cell phone tower in order to trick nearby mobile devices into connecting to it and revealing their location — police were able to track him to an apartment.
During proceedings in the case, authorities revealed that they had used the equipment at least 200 additional times since 2010 without disclosing this to courts and obtaining a warrant.
Although the specific device and manufacturer are identified in neither the one court do ent available for the 2008 case, nor in a video of a court proceeding, the ACLU says in a blog post today that the device is “likely a stingray made by the Florida-based Harris Corporation.”
Harris is the leading maker of stingrays in the U.S., and the ACLU has long suspected that the company has been loaning the devices to police departments throughout the state for product testing and promotional purposes. As the court do ent notes in the 2008 case, “the Tallahassee Police Department is not the owner of the equipment.”
The ACLU now suspects these police departments may have all signed non-disclosure agreements with the vendor and used the agreement to avoid disclosing their use of the equipment to courts.
“The police seem to have interpreted the agreement to bar them even from revealing their use of Stingrays to judges, who we usually rely on to provide oversight of police investigations,” the ACLU writes.
sameThe government has long asserted that it doesn’t need to obtain a probable-cause warrant to use the devices because they don’t collect the content of phone calls and text messages but rather operate like pen-registers and trap-and-traces, collecting the equivalent of header information.
This is the first time, however, that a contract with the vendor has been cited as a reason for not obtaining a warrant.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
