this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2025
378 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

69098 readers
2881 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 news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
378
Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional: Judge says tower dumps violate the 4th amendment, but will let the cops do it this one time, as a treat. (www.courtwatch.news)
submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by Tea@programming.dev to c/technology@lemmy.world
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A judge in Nevada has ruled that “tower dumps”—the law enforcement practice of grabbing vast troves of private personal data from cell towers—is unconstitutional. The judge also ruled that the cops could, this one time, still use the evidence they obtained through this unconstitutional search.

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 107 points 3 days ago (1 children)

he admitted its unconstitutional... cant that be used for an immediate appeal?

[–] timewarp@lemmy.world 29 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Yes & no. Sadly case precedent in matters like this typically favor law enforcement & prosecutors for multiple reasons. One of them being where they argue if they make the ruling retroactive, then thousands of convicts where they used similar evidence would also be eligible for appeals or dismissal. Another more messed up reason is that if evidence is obtained illegally, if it still "proves" a defendant is guilty, the courts have came up with certain exceptions where it can still be used.

[–] Frozengyro@lemmy.world 16 points 3 days ago (1 children)

So anything discovered further is 'fruit of the poisonous tree' and no longer admissible as evidence. But since it wasn't 'wrong' at the time it was done it is admissible?

Is that correct?

[–] Tillyface89@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

It's basically a good faith exception. At the time it wasn't known it was illegal so the police couldn't have known. Now that they know anything forwarded becomes inadmissible.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 38 points 3 days ago

this one time, as a treat.

Thanks for this, at least it gave me a chuckle in these dark times.

[–] PunkRockSportsFan@fanaticus.social 18 points 3 days ago

This sounds like a meaningless ruling. The fascists go what they want unfettered.

When will you have had enough?

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 14 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Shit or get off the pot, your honor.

Soap, ballot, jury (you are here), ammo.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Slight correction:

Soap, ballot, jury, (you are here) ammo.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

I mean, presumes facts not in evidence.

[–] Redditsux@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

American court system has become a monkey court.

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 5 points 3 days ago

Well, it's only constitutional this one time. Every other time, it isn't.