• smeg@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    1 year ago

    the police acted in good faith, meaning the evidence will be allowed in court despite the warrant being legally flawed

    I have no knowledge (or particular interest) in USA laws, but I guess that judges making this decision is a statement of future intent. I guess if you don’t want to be tracked then don’t use services which track you!

    • _number8_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      1 year ago

      this just means the cops can do anything??

      i mean shit i guess they can here anyway, but it’s stunning to see that written down. oh they thought they were doing the right thing? oh that’s fine then

    • yeather@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      In Colorado, until a new law overides the ruling, google must reveal your search history when subpoenaed. This doesn’t affect surrounding states or federal law until their own judges make a ruling or politicians make a law.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        The issue here is not that they are required to reveal search history of suspects, the issue is that the police is browsing the search history of everyone in order to find a suspect. That’s not what warrants are for and violates the constitutional rights of nearly everyone they searched.

      • roguetrick@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Opposite actually. The court decision says that all future reverse keyword search warrants in Colorado will have their evidence thrown out. This one, however, didn’t have precedent so the police acted in good faith.