this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2023
88 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

59398 readers
2563 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
88
Colorado court upholds Google keyword search warrant which led to arrests in fatal arson (apnews.com)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Colorado upheld a warrant’s reverse keyword search for directions to a house. They claim the search warrant, which was overly broad and without individual probable cause, did not violate Google’s millions of US users’ fourth amendment protections, because the court said the police were acting in good faith under what was known about the law at the time.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

because police were acting in good faith under what was known about the law at the time.

A terrible smell.

'Good faith' is such a weak reasoning. How can it be used for the actions of officials, and even more so when they act against constitutional rights? Shouldn't a police know both what the law is and what they are doing? What if the police and this court are both equally clueless about the law?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I believe SCOTUS has ruled that police officers have no duty to actually be familiar with laws/statutes while performing their job.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Ah, OK, I see. Shoot first, ask the questions later.

(But I guess the rule of law wants to have a word with these Scotuses)