Colorado upheld a warrant’s reverse keyword search for directions to a house. They claim the search warrant, which was overly broad and without individual probable cause, did not violate Google’s millions of US users’ fourth amendment protections, because the court said the police were acting in good faith under what was known about the law at the time.

  • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    because police were acting in good faith under what was known about the law at the time.

    A terrible smell.

    ‘Good faith’ is such a weak reasoning. How can it be used for the actions of officials, and even more so when they act against constitutional rights? Shouldn’t a police know both what the law is and what they are doing? What if the police and this court are both equally clueless about the law?

    • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I believe SCOTUS has ruled that police officers have no duty to actually be familiar with laws/statutes while performing their job.

      • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Ah, OK, I see. Shoot first, ask the questions later.

        (But I guess the rule of law wants to have a word with these Scotuses)