longpath

About

Username
longpath
Joined
Visits
151
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
1,018
Badges
1
Posts
419

Reactions

581Like11Dislike71Informative

  • US Attorney General claims a 'few weeks' needed to harvest data from rioters' locked iPhon...

    longpathlongpath
    randominternetperson said:

    What's the legal justification for searching their phones at all?  If I punch you in the face, can the police get a search warrant to search my house?  What does rioting and destruction of property have to do with your personal information and communications?  Searching the phone sounds like an unreasonable search and taking it in the first place seems like an unreasonable seizure.  They caught these guys red handed and have all the evidence they need to get convictions.  That should be enough.

    Presumably the argument will be that they are trying to find evidence for someone "inciting a riot" but they should be able to solve that part of the case with old fashioned interrogation and deal-making with the hundreds of people they arrested.

    My best guess is that they are looking for evidence of collusion, and whether there are any identifiable unindicted co-conspirators. If there turns out to be evidence of collusion, then additional charges would be forthcoming.

    Let's say you punch me in the face and are immediately arrested. Then law enforcement search your home and it turns out that you planned to first disorient me with the punch and then push me in front of a bus or train that you knew the schedule of. Then they would add assault with intent and attempted murder to the charges. If they merely arrested you and prosecuted you for simple assault and battery, then the larger crime would go unprosecuted.

    As for whether police can get a search warranty to search your home if you commit assault and battery outside your home, the answer is yes, they can, as they have probable cause to believe you committed a crime, and there might be evidence that you planned the assault and battery, rather than it being a "crime of passion".

    The legal justification in this case is that there is probable cause to believe the arrested parties committed a crime, and that is all the legal justification required for a search warrant. Whether that level of justification is reasonable or not in a broader context than merely legal justification is something up for debate; but you asked about legal justification, and it simply comes down to whether or not there is probable cause.
    anton zuykovbaconstangzoetmbmaciekskontakt

  • Lawsuit blames Apple's 'less safe' FaceTime implementation for fatal traffic accident

    longpathlongpath
    Mike Wuerthele said:
    Apple doesn't hold the patent for an in-dash cutoff of FaceTime.

    They do hold it for a handheld implementation, which is what the crux of the suit is about. Apple has the patent, they haven't used it in a fashion that would have prevented the crash.
    As noted by others, the patent does not indicate a way to determine if the user is driver or passenger, so it wasn't implemented. If they implemented it with a bypass option where someone indicates he/she is a passenger, then it still could not have prevented the crash. If they implemented it without a bypass option, then it could not be used by passengers on cars (including taxis), busses, or trains.
    anantksundaram