←back to thread

558 points mikece | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.202s | source
Show context
duxup ◴[] No.45029937[source]
>Michael Carson became the focus of a theft investigation involving money allegedly taken from a neighbor’s safe.

>Authorities secured a warrant to search his phone, but the document placed no boundaries on what could be examined.

>It permitted access to all data on the device, including messages, photos, contacts, and documents, without any restriction based on time period or relevance. Investigators collected over a thousand pages of information, much of it unrelated to the accusation.

Yeah that's pretty absurd.

replies(3): >>45030333 #>>45030529 #>>45030813 #
sidewndr46 ◴[] No.45030529[source]
What's more absurd is that a warrant could ever establish such a restriction. If the suspect had a file named "Not evidence of me stealing my neighbor's safe" and "Definitely not a video of me practicing how to break open a safe" would it be fair to assume the warrant doesn't allow access to it?
replies(6): >>45030548 #>>45030683 #>>45030701 #>>45030787 #>>45031342 #>>45031513 #
lovich ◴[] No.45031513[source]
The warrant is giving special, temporary powers to the police.

How do you think a warrant couldn’t establish such restrictions when it’s already loosening existing restrictions on the police?

replies(1): >>45031902 #
sidewndr46 ◴[] No.45031902[source]
You're not providing examples of any actual restrictions that can be put on a warrant. Is the judge going to give the officers byte offsets to look at on a block device?
replies(3): >>45031954 #>>45032440 #>>45038595 #
Ukv ◴[] No.45032440[source]
Something like "call logs and text messages sent between 22nd and 26th of August" would be common, to my understanding.
replies(1): >>45032807 #
sidewndr46 ◴[] No.45032807[source]
Well that's a funny thing, because what is a text message? Does it include RCS? Does it include WhatsApp? What about Telegram?

I made a text file and emailed it to my boss a few weeks back, is that a "text" ?

replies(3): >>45033088 #>>45033711 #>>45034202 #
1. kstrauser ◴[] No.45033711[source]
In my albeit limited experience around lawyers and the legal system in general, judges are not amused by clever wordplay. Sometimes they'll entertain specific challenges to specific wordings, but in general the plain, obvious definition of something is the one they'll go with.

A text message is something in Messages.app or the Google equivalent. It may include a message in Signal or WhatsApp, but I suspect they'd want to see some case precedence supporting that. It almost certainly isn't a screenshot in their photos app, or a message written in text in the notes app, or Aretha Franklin spelling out R-E-S-P-E-C-T in the music app.

It's a message in the phone's commonly used messaging app. Anything much beyond that is likely to earn a scolding from an unimpressed judge.