"Last week, EFF, along with the Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan, ACLU, and ACLU of Michigan, filed an amicus brief in People v. Carson in the Supreme Court of Michigan, challenging the constitutionality of the search warrant of Mr. Carson’s smart phone.
In this case, Mr. Carson was arrested for stealing money from his neighbor’s safe with a co-conspirator. A few months later, law enforcement applied for a search warrant for Mr. Carson’s cell phone. The search warrant enumerated the claims that formed the basis for Mr. Carson’s arrest, but the only mention of a cell phone was a law enforcement officer’s general assertion that phones are communication devices often used in the commission of crimes. A warrant was issued which allowed the search of the entirety of Mr. Carson’s smart phone, with no temporal or category limits on the data to be searched. Evidence found on the phone was then used to convict Mr. Carson.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals made a number of rulings in favor of Mr. Carson, including that evidence from the phone should not have been admitted because the search warrant lacked particularity and was unconstitutional. The government’s appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court was accepted and we filed an amicus brief."
#USA #Michigan #Surveillance #Cellphones #FourthAmendment #PoliceState #Privacy
@zero_spelled_with_an_ecks I think that the right to an attorney is nice, and he got that. He is also guilty. Supression of the evidence of his guilt doesn’t make him not a criminal.
There’s plenty of examples of overreach the ACLU could be using their limited funds on. Someone who is an actual robber, proven beyond doubt? Well, morally, I’d leave him and spend the money elsewhere. Once the point is proven elsewhere, he can try and appeal.
This isn’t about his guilt, it’s about unreasonable search, and it impacts you as much as him. You’re saying you’d rather someone get punished than we all have our rights protected. I’m very glad you don’t decide where the funding goes. I’m done with this conversation; we disagree on a fundamental level as the what rights are for and who deserves their rights protected.
@zero_spelled_with_an_ecks That’s fine. That’s your call.
I think differently. I think that criminals should be punished.
I’m also in a different country entirely.
I’m going to just assume you’re completely ignorant of the values and processes of the legal system in the US, then. Innocent until proven guilty is an important concept. Determining that guilt has rules that must be followed. Like if I were to say I win this conversation and you’re wrong without proving it, would you accept it? Too bad, people with the wrong ideas don’t get to argue.
@zero_spelled_with_an_ecks You’d be wrong.
But, he did it. That’s a fact. There’s proof. A legal argument that he shouldn’t be found guilty of his actual, factual crime because the police looked at his phone a bit harder than he would’ve liked? That’s your argument for releasing a criminal?
You get that it looks terrible, right? It’s the kind of thing that’ll get trunp writing a chatgpt EO in a heartbeat, and it’ll be far worse for everyone.
I don’t give a damn how it looks to you, it looks to me like the cops are the criminals that we need protection from in this and many other cases.