| ▲ | Natsu 3 hours ago | |
Maybe, but in MN, they just decided as a matter of the state constitution that this basically isn't allowable. You see, the cops had a murder in a remote place. They got a warrant, and the warrant showed 12 people in and out of a small area near the murder, of which one phone went there many times. They got another warrant, for that one phone, and traced it back to someone who is obviously the murderer. The courts decided to suppress this, never mind the cops got warrants at both steps, and their investigation was as minimally invasive as one could imagine for this sort of thing. So it's not unreasonable to wonder just what we're protecting sometimes, as I understand that while the decision here doesn't technically ban all geofence warrants, it makes them nearly impossible as a practical matter. One can read the decision here: https://mncourts.gov/_media/migration/appellate/supreme-cour... | ||
| ▲ | drugstorecowboy 2 hours ago | parent [-] | |
Exactly, and to make sure that never happens again why not just arrest all 12 of those people until they prove their innocence? With enough constant surveillance we can be positive that no bad person ever gets away with anything. Honestly, do you look at the justice system in the United States and think "You know the real issue here is that not enough people are being punished"? | ||