455
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
455 points (98.9% liked)
Privacy
4027 readers
2 users here now
A community for Lemmy users interested in privacy
Rules:
- Be civil
- No spam posting
- Keep posts on-topic
- No trolling
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
What a terrible decision. That's like saying if you have a house key they can search your house.
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
They can't be, at least not without a trial.
That won't stop the Court.
Sneaky fuckers thought I forgot about the third amendment.
Soldiers keep trying to sleep with your spouse?
they did in fact use the data seized from his phone to find his house, then took his key and searched it
There are finger print locks for doors available commercially too
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.