Hacker News Reader

Comment by SoftwareMaven | Hacker News Reader

A great decision, IMO, and the only sane decision for e.g. traffic stops (a place where cell phone searches should never have been considered legal). It probably won't alter things appreciably for somebody who is being arrested, though. I can't imagine that warrant will be hard to get if the police have enough on you to put you in cuffs.

View on HN

A warrant's has to also have legal justification, i.e. "reasonable suspicion". If it does not, that's one more thing that can be argued at trial, with the possibility that the search can be thrown out.

Of course, the only time that kind of stuff gets vigorously challenged is if the defendant has top-notch legal representation. Public defender's typically would rather just plea-bargain it out.

Still, it's great progress for keeping everything above board as much as possible.

Any legal defense would rather plea-bargain.

A _good_ legal defense will present these kinds of things during the negotiation. Which could very well be the difference between a plea involving time served and community service or one with a 10 year mandatory minimum.

As we start having more and more officers being recorded as they interact with the public, it would be interesting to have a policy of "thinking out loud", where the cops actively are dictating what they are thinking during an encounter so that it is harder to "rewrite history" by presenting an alternative false viewpoint in order to be congruous with the decision to search.

For example, if a cop says "I'm pulling this person over because they have a busted tail light", it's hard for them to make a claim that they thought the person could have been some sort of drug kingpin that needed further searching.". Compare this to "I'm pulling this vehicle over because I just saw it leave a known drug house."

The more we can recreate "presence" at a particular time and place when a crime (by an individual or by a LEO), the more information judges and juries will have to deliberate if suspicion was in fact reasonable, and not based on some arbitrary detail like the race of the person being stopped.

Recreating presence makes it so someone no longer has to depend on top-notch legal council to artfully argue why they are innocent. It should bring down the legal costs of both the prosecution and the defense, while achieving greater justice.

The value in requiring a warrant isn't about how hard they are to get. While they do server as a certain minimum standard (you have to at least make it sound ok), the big benefit is that they serve as a kind of governor (speed limiter) on the powers we give to police.

It's a lot harder to start a widespread, hard-to-undo abuse of power when you have to ask permission each time you exercise that power. A single abuse of power can be (hypothetically) remedied in court after the fact. Unfortunately, the situation changes when the problem grows to "general warrant" size. At that scale, you tend to need armies, not courts.

Just make sure to LOCK your phone upon being stopped by the police. The ruling leaves open the possibility that cops may be allowed to disable locking software if the phone is unlocked and they take it.

So lock your phone immediately. Give remote wipe to a trusted family member if you are truly worried.

How does this ruling leave that possibility open? What does "no search without warrant" leave open to this interpretation? Are you suggesting that police would be able to make an "in plain view" argument on unlocked phones?

Finally, law enforcement’s remaining concerns in a particular case might be addressed by responding in a targeted manner to urgent threats of remote wiping, see Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U. S. ___, ___, or by taking action to disable a phone’s locking mechanism in order to secure the scene, see Illinois v. McAr- thur, 531 U. S. 326, 331–333. Pp. 12–15.

I believe the idea is that they can try to disable the lock in order to keep the evidence available for use after getting a warrant.

Thanks for the explanation.

To be perfectly frank...

They don't even need that much at the rate most warrants are sworn out.

e.g. "a confidential source" that we saw on here yesterday.

in any case, it's good to see this decision. perhaps it's the beginning of the legal system recognizing that electronic data is private information and should be protected.

Would you link to the source you're referring to?

It's confidential, releasing it would impact [pick one] a) an ongoing investigation b) the safety of undercover agent c) national security. But, trust us, source had good reliable info.

[edit: to the totally confused. My comment is political satire. And it purposefully misidentified which "source" you were referring to for purposes of bitching about USA law enforcement.]

Now I'm totally confused.

e.g. "a confidential source" that we saw on here yesterday.

That implies some confidential source was featured on HN yesterday. Linking to that post should do none of those things.

He's referring to the practice of Florida law enforcement claiming that the basis for a warrant came from "a confidential source" (which, in the context of warrants, appears to mean "an actual person"), when in reality they were using information captured via IMSI capturers ("stingrays") -- devices which MITM cell phone connections to surveil users of the cell network.

In short, he was saying that we can reliably expect many warrants to have been obtained by law enforcement lying to judges. Based on the information (lies) presented to the judges, they're going to approve the warrant, because they operate on the premise that law enforcement wouldn't lie to them.

I believe this referring to a discussion on an article about the use of Stingray-type devices (If someone can provide the link that would be great), particularly how their use was concealed from courts when obtaining a search warrant. Instead of telling the court that the information was obtained by use of a Stingray, they told the court the information came from a "confidential source"

you're correct. I'll try to find the source later, but this was exactly the case. Police would install the tracker or whatever, then tell the judge it came from a confidential source (the legal definition of which is a person). Meaning that police were outright lying to judges.

edit: source -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7931548

For minor offenses, probably hard to get a warrant to search your phone. At least is another road block.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com