• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Score one for the Fourth Amendment

Lord Tammerlain said:
The police still have the tool, they just need a warrant to use it
Click to expand...

How could one get such a warrant? Could a warrant be issued to permit cross-checking all cellphone numbers present nearby location A from 6/1/17 through 6/20/16 and all cellphone records nearby location B from 10/16/2017 through 11/2/2017 to compare for matches because homicide victims were found near both locations at around those times and both victims had "here's your sign" carved into their butts?

Are you really worried that if four matches had been found that those four 'presumed innocent' folks might have further search warrants issued or be interviewed by police? Obviously. if the matches ranged into the hundreds that would be dropped as interesting yet useless information to aid in the criminal investigation.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
How could one get such a warrant? Could a warrant be issued to permit cross-checking all cellphone numbers present nearby location A from 6/1/17 through 6/20/16 and all cellphone records nearby location B from 10/16/2017 through 11/2/2017 to compare for matches because homicide victims were found near both locations at around those times and both victims had "here's your sign" carved into their butts?

Are you really worried that if four matches had been found that those four 'presumed innocent' folks might have further search warrants issued or be interviewed by police? Obviously. if the matches ranged into the hundreds that would be dropped as interesting yet useless information to aid in the criminal investigation.
Click to expand...

If the cops want to trace someone's location via cell phone data, they need to present probable cause to a judge that the subject is engaged in criminal behavior, and get a search warrant.

If they don't do that, then any information they may have is inadmissible in court.

If they do, they can trace and surveille the perp all they want.
 
Harshaw said:
Gorsuch, in his dissent, would have gone much further than the majority. He would have jettisoned the entire "expectation of privacy" framework set up in the Katz, Smith, and Miller line of cases and overturned the idea that items or information held on your behalf by third parties do not fall under that expectation of privacy. He'd consider such information a bailment, and thus protected by the Fourth Amendment, obviating the need for the case-by-case judgment scheme set up by the majority in this case.

Thus, this small victory for the Fourth Amendment, which may not even result in the defendant's conviction being overturned, would have been a huge, sweeping Fourth Amendment victory and a major setback for authority, if Gorsuch had his way.
Click to expand...

Moon said:
It appears Gorsuch dissented because he felt the ruling didn't go far enough.
Click to expand...


That doesn't make sense.

Why did he dissent if he agreed with the plaintiff but just wanted more?

Why wouldn't he give the plaintiff his win and add a statement that he favored going further?

He would have ruled against the plaintiff even if his vote would have mattered in the end? just because he didn't like the how the other judges only wanted to go partly as far as he would have?
 
Dittohead not! said:
If the cops want to trace someone's location via cell phone data, they need to present probable cause to a judge that the subject is engaged in criminal behavior, and get a search warrant.

If they don't do that, then any information they may have is inadmissible in court.

If they do, they can trace and surveille the perp all they want.
Click to expand...

The LEOs, as yet, don't have any suspects - that is why they would seek a warrant to check for matches of cellphones (in metadata) from two probably related crimes at different times and locations. Obviously, the cellphone records alone would not get a conviction but they just may lead to other forensic evidence - if a named suspect can be identified and named in a valid search warrant.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
The LEOs, as yet, don't have any suspects - that is why they would seek a warrant to check for matches of cellphones (in metadata) from two probably related crimes at different times and locations. Obviously, the cellphone records alone would not get a conviction but they just may lead to other forensic evidence - if a named suspect can be identified and named in a valid search warrant.
Click to expand...

Exactly the point. If a citizen is not a suspect in a crime, then the authorities have no business violating his privacy. What the SCOTUS has said is that tracking someone via cell phone is a violation of privacy. The Fourth Amendment is equally as important as the Second. The Fifth is also important, and is currently under attack. I'd like to see the SCOTUS address that one as well. Maybe if the ACLU makes enough waves, they will.
It is essential that the entire Bill of Rights be protected and kept up to date.
 
Amelia said:
That doesn't make sense.

Why did he dissent if he agreed with the plaintiff but just wanted more?

Why wouldn't he give the plaintiff his win and add a statement that he favored going further?

He would have ruled against the plaintiff even if his vote would have mattered in the end? just because he didn't like the how the other judges only wanted to go partly as far as he would have?
Click to expand...

Because he did not agree with the majority's Fourth Amendment reasoning and could not join in their ruling. Their reasoning keeps intact something he believes should be jettisoned, and it doesn't even reverse the defendant's conviction.

You can read it all here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf
 
I like this ruing but am concerned that the decision was so close.

"Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free."
 
Dittohead not! said:
Exactly the point. If a citizen is not a suspect in a crime, then the authorities have no business violating his privacy. What the SCOTUS has said is that tracking someone via cell phone is a violation of privacy. The Fourth Amendment is equally as important as the Second. The Fifth is also important, and is currently under attack. I'd like to see the SCOTUS address that one as well. Maybe if the ACLU makes enough waves, they will.
It is essential that the entire Bill of Rights be protected and kept up to date.
Click to expand...

We seem to be taking past each other here - I am not advocating for a warrantless search even of the metadata. I am suggesting that the occurrence of probably related crimes at different times and locations justifies probable cause to search cellphone metadata (only for those times and places) for possible matches. If a reasonably small subset of such matches occur then a search warrant for the owner of those matched cellphones could be sought.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
We seem to be taking past each other here - I am not advocating for a warrantless search even of the metadata. I am suggesting that the occurrence of probably related crimes at different times and locations justifies probable cause to search cellphone metadata (only for those times and places) for possible matches. If a reasonably small subset of such matches occur then a search warrant for the owner of those matched cellphones could be sought.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.
Probable cause = search warrant. No probable cause = no searches.
 
Lursa said:
I like this ruing but am concerned that the decision was so close.

"Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free."
Click to expand...

yeah, that is concerning. at least it came down the right way, IMO, though.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Absolutely.
Probable cause = search warrant. No probable cause = no searches.
Click to expand...

There is probable cause to believe that a cellphone location match between multiple similar crime scenes is worth trying to identify. The judge, of course, should ask for data (evidence?) relating to these alleged similar crimes and should limit the scope of the metadata search warrant(s) to those specific time ranges and locations only.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I'm not so much for denying LEOs the limited use of valuable tools to help find serial/repeat criminals. This technique would be useless for solving a single crime - it would simply yield too much completely useless data to wade through. LEOs are not apt to get a search warrant based on 'we found this cellphone number was nearby at the time of a this single crime' anymore than a review of nearby store or traffic surveillance cameras is to yield (a list of?) 'likely' suspects for a single crime.
Click to expand...

They can still access the records, if they show probable cause.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom