DOJ Seeks Supreme Court Approval for Warrantless Cellphone Searches

Started by jimmy olsen, August 20, 2013, 06:55:12 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 2
User actions

CountDeMoney

#15
August 21, 2013, 05:46:28 AM
Nigga, please.  I didn't even stick around long enough for a fucking t-shirt.

Now go write a speeding ticket on a Spec-4, Base Boy.

11B4V

#16
August 21, 2013, 12:05:30 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 21, 2013, 05:46:28 AM
Nigga, please.  I didn't even stick around long enough for a fucking t-shirt.

Now go write a speeding ticket on a Spec-4, Base Boy.

DV's and DUI's chuckle head. DV's are easily are most common call.
"there's a long tradition of insulting people we disagree with here, and I'll be damned if I listen to your entreaties otherwise."-OVB

"Obviously not a Berkut-commanded armored column.  They're not all brewing."- CdM

"We've reached one of our phase lines after the firefight and it smells bad—meaning it's a little bit suspicious... Could be an amb—".

The Minsky Moment

#17
August 21, 2013, 12:14:40 PM
The rule the DOJ is relying on dates to 1974 and arose in the context of paint chips on the perps clothing.  But the language used by the Court was very broad and would appear to sweep in an item on the suspect's person at the time of the arrest.  Of course the Court in 74 wasn't considering the technological context of present day smartphones.
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

Sheilbh

#18
August 24, 2013, 10:00:50 PM
I'd tend to side with the DoJ view on this. I don't see why phones should be special.
Let's bomb Russia!
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2
User actions