Hacker News Reader

Comment by none_to_remain | Hacker News Reader

Why would a subpoena have a warrant?

It doesn't need a warrant, but a subpoena is just to compel Twitter/X to release the information, while a warrant would legally require Twitter/X to release the information.

The issue is that the subpoena told Twitter/X not to inform the accountholder that their information was going to be given to the NYPD, nor inform the accountholder of the subpoena's existence. While that's enforceable with a warrant, it is not enforceable with a subpoena.

This shows how NYPD is attempting to compel companies to provide them with personal information of users, and keep it secret from the users, all without needing a judge's approval or warrant. That is not the proper channel to do this, and they know they have no legal leg to stand on which is why they aren't going to try to fight it's legitimacy in court.

My understanding as a non-practitioner is that subpoenas are addressed to a person (individual or corporate) compelling them to produce evidence or testimony, while a warrant is addressed to police, giving them the power to effect a specific search, seizure, or arrest.

Per Federal Law (Stored Communications Act), authorities that want to access electronic records need a court-issued warrant. This failed to meet that requirement.

Yes, but if presented with a warrant for your property (ex. subscriber information) you must comply or be charged with obstructing justice or impeding an investigation.

When presented with an administrative subpoena not backed by a warrant you may be able to deny the subpoena without being guilty of such crimes.

Subpoenas are never "backed by a warrant." Probably what you mean is a subpoena signed by a judge, rather than the self-issued "administrative" subpoena being discussed here.

The article does a bad job explaining why this subpoena is different from a regular subpoena. The "warrentless subpoena" bit is really misleading.

However it does look like this is different from the normal subpoena process. This doesn't seem to be part of discovery - there is no action. The referenced "Section 14-137 of the New York City Administrative Code" seems to basically grant the NYPD commissioner powers a judge usually has. So there is something to worry about.

There are two types of subpoenas in use: 1) police-issued ("administrative"); 2) court-issued ("warranted").

Having been the victim of these on many occasions, I can also see the original article seems to have things slightly twisted. The SCA gives the power to any governmental body to subpoena metadata from providers under an administrative subpoena without notice to the user. 18 U.S. Code § 2703(c)(2) I think.

It's the content of records that starts to get into constitutional areas such as 4th Amend. requirements.

The fourth amendment requires them for search and seizures.

Can you provide any example of a "warranted subpoena"?

All court orders are warrants. That is the most basic definition of a warrant. So a subpoena issued by the court is warranted. A subpoena not issued by a court but accompanied by a separate warrant for the same information constitutes a warranted search or seizure where failure to comply with said search/seizure by the warranted party (ie. law enforcement) could constitute multiple crimes depending on the circumstances.

> fourth amendment requires them for search and seizures

The third-party doctrine muddies this under current law.

This is what confuses me. NYPD subpoenaed Twitter. Twitter said "no".

I don't understand why Rabbi Copwatch would be involved in fighting the subpoena.

Rabbi Copwatch should sue NYPD for infringing his civil rights by spying on him.

He has nothing to defend against. Under current law, if he doesn't want NYPD siezing papers and effects about him from Twitter, that is not his papers and effects, he needs to stop giving copies of data about himself to Twitter. I don't like that law, but I think that's where the law sits today.

My understanding is that the customer of a service (like Twitter or an ISP) can sometimes file a motion to quash a subpoena given to their service provider. It depends on the jurisdiction and the nature of the case, however.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com