The case involving a Virginia bank robbery is the latest example of the justices wrestling with how to apply constitutional protections to new technology.
They can illegally obtain the data all they’d like, this ruling means that the data obtained like that will be suppressed and not allowed to be shown to a jury.
Ignoring that would result in a mistrial and that decision would be upheld all the way up the chain via appeals.
Yeah, but you and I both know once they’ve identified a target, no matter what the means, they’ll use that identification to build a case that doesn’t involve the location information… Arguing “inevitable discovery” the whole way.
They can present whatever arguments they’d like and a judge can read the above Supreme Court case, rule that their case is built on illegal evidence and dismiss it. If that judge does not the the judges in the court of appeals can overturn the lower court.
This ruling confirms that there is no other legal path to obtain that data which isn’t a warrant.
Of course, you’re right that there are other ways to prove location, but the digital evidence (as in this case) would be suppressed and the jury would not hear it.
The case that launched this Supreme Court decision is pretty textbook poison fruit. The subsequent search warrant which obtained the gun and cash was obtained specifically because of the geofence warrant. The lower court still has to determine the legality of the original warrant, but if it was found to be unreasonable (likely, overly broad) then all of the evidence including the custodial confession would be tossed.
This ruling confirms that there is no other legal path to obtain that data which isn’t a warrant.
The supreme court ruling doesn’t go this far.
The ruling says that a search occurred when LEOs obtained the geofenced location data from a service provider. The case was sent back down to the circuit court to determine whether or not a warrant was required.
There are various exceptions that allow the government to conduct warrantless searches under the 4th amendment. For example:
the “frisk” in a Terry stop to search for weapons.
search with consent
search incident to arrest
hot pursuit and exigent circumstance allow police to follow suspects into a place, but not usually to then go looking for stuff.
searches within the (generous) border zone for border enforcement
searches at airport security and similar contexts
public roadway DUI checkpoints and other road safety checkpoints that stop all drivers.
It’s not obvious that any of those apply to this case, but maybe they do. The circuit court will decide.
Except that this administration only gives a shit about what the courts say when they find in their favor…
They can illegally obtain the data all they’d like, this ruling means that the data obtained like that will be suppressed and not allowed to be shown to a jury.
Ignoring that would result in a mistrial and that decision would be upheld all the way up the chain via appeals.
Yeah, but you and I both know once they’ve identified a target, no matter what the means, they’ll use that identification to build a case that doesn’t involve the location information… Arguing “inevitable discovery” the whole way.
And either way, they’ll prosecute.
As you and I both know, a case built on illegally obtained evidence is also illegal.
They can present whatever arguments they’d like and a judge can read the above Supreme Court case, rule that their case is built on illegal evidence and dismiss it. If that judge does not the the judges in the court of appeals can overturn the lower court.
All you have to do to get evidence admitted is show you could have arrived at it via a different (legal) path.
Usually it takes a really good lawyer to argue fruit of the poisonous tree successfully.
This ruling confirms that there is no other legal path to obtain that data which isn’t a warrant.
Of course, you’re right that there are other ways to prove location, but the digital evidence (as in this case) would be suppressed and the jury would not hear it.
The case that launched this Supreme Court decision is pretty textbook poison fruit. The subsequent search warrant which obtained the gun and cash was obtained specifically because of the geofence warrant. The lower court still has to determine the legality of the original warrant, but if it was found to be unreasonable (likely, overly broad) then all of the evidence including the custodial confession would be tossed.
The supreme court ruling doesn’t go this far.
The ruling says that a search occurred when LEOs obtained the geofenced location data from a service provider. The case was sent back down to the circuit court to determine whether or not a warrant was required.
There are various exceptions that allow the government to conduct warrantless searches under the 4th amendment. For example:
It’s not obvious that any of those apply to this case, but maybe they do. The circuit court will decide.
That’s fair, I was adding a bit of my own judgment into that statement.
I believe that the circuit court will find that this is a typical search, requiring a warrant, but the Supreme Court didn’t explicitly say that.
I like to think the justice system works…but I’m not convinced these days.
I hope you’re right.