You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
207 points

What a terrible decision. That’s like saying if you have a house key they can search your house.

permalink
report
reply
47 points

There’s a reason they keep you focused on the first two amendments. Don’t want you realizing how comfortable they are with unregulated search and seizure.

Honestly idk how the civil forfeiture can possibly be considered constitutional

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

They can’t be, at least not without a trial.

That won’t stop the Court.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Sneaky fuckers thought I forgot about the third amendment.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Soldiers keep trying to sleep with your spouse?

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points
*

they did in fact use the data seized from his phone to find his house, then took his key and searched it

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

There are finger print locks for doors available commercially too

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

His attorney probably should have raised that objection in the first place. He should have objected based on the phone not being material to the search of the car. But if he didn’t raise the objection correctly during the initial trial, then he can’t raise the objection on the appeal either.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Privacy

!privacy@lemmy.world

Create post

A community for Lemmy users interested in privacy

Rules:

  1. Be civil
  2. No spam posting
  3. Keep posts on-topic
  4. No trolling

Community stats

  • 724

    Monthly active users

  • 297

    Posts

  • 1.9K

    Comments

Community moderators