Donald Trump has vowed to go after political enemies, undocumented immigrants, and others if he wins. Experts warn he could easily turn the surveillance state against his targets.
Depending on your state, law enforcement can hire a dude with a drone and a sweet camera array, and do this without a warrant.
You may think this qualifies as unreasonable search as per the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, but some state supreme courts have said nah.
And the US Supreme Court says that if an illegal, warrantless search by law enforcement reveals a crime severe enough, that evidence is admissible anyway, because it would be bad if a severe crime went unpunished.
The severity of that crime: possession for personal use.
This is the United States in the 2020s, not some dystopian fiction.
I think that’s mostly true, but people can and do get off on 4th amendment defences, even for serious crimes like murder. So if the court recognizes that a search violated the 4th amendment, it’s not going to be admitted just because it’s a “serious crime.”
But the police can and do pay private parties to do things that would be illegal for them to do. That loophole should be closed. Any use of information as evidence by law enforcement should require a subpoena, and maybe even requesting it for a lead should also require a subpoena.
So if someone tips law enforcement off that I have a controlled substance on my property and are willing to provide evidence, law enforcement should be required to bring that in front of a judge along with their own evidence for why that source is trustworthy, especially in this age of AI when people can easily generate believable images. The standard for probable cause should be higher than it is.
So as a mostly law abiding citizen, I’ll resist that nonsense. It’s the least I can do to look just like those who may be targeted by the police.
Depending on your state, law enforcement can hire a dude with a drone and a sweet camera array, and do this without a warrant.
You may think this qualifies as unreasonable search as per the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, but some state supreme courts have said nah.
And the US Supreme Court says that if an illegal, warrantless search by law enforcement reveals a crime severe enough, that evidence is admissible anyway, because it would be bad if a severe crime went unpunished.
The severity of that crime: possession for personal use.
This is the United States in the 2020s, not some dystopian fiction.
I think that’s mostly true, but people can and do get off on 4th amendment defences, even for serious crimes like murder. So if the court recognizes that a search violated the 4th amendment, it’s not going to be admitted just because it’s a “serious crime.”
But the police can and do pay private parties to do things that would be illegal for them to do. That loophole should be closed. Any use of information as evidence by law enforcement should require a subpoena, and maybe even requesting it for a lead should also require a subpoena.
So if someone tips law enforcement off that I have a controlled substance on my property and are willing to provide evidence, law enforcement should be required to bring that in front of a judge along with their own evidence for why that source is trustworthy, especially in this age of AI when people can easily generate believable images. The standard for probable cause should be higher than it is.
So as a mostly law abiding citizen, I’ll resist that nonsense. It’s the least I can do to look just like those who may be targeted by the police.