>In that case, it's illegal to look in the phone book for names starting with "john" because that's not a specific user.
That's an absurd reduction, and not at all analogous to the situation discussed in TFA.
That's an absurd reduction, and not at all analogous to the situation discussed in TFA.
However, the court fails to articulate anything close to a workable rule in its reasoning.
Further, because the actual outcome was an upheld search d/t good faith reliance, the finding of unconstitutionality is basically dicta, and would/should be ignored by other districts and even in the same district.
I don't think this ruling offers the protections people want or should have. I think that point stands, however hidden by downvoting.