Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday August 28 2017, @05:53PM   Printer-friendly
from the picture-this dept.

Some more good news on the Fourth Amendment front, even if it's somewhat jurisdictionally limited: the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has (sort of) decided [PDF] the Supreme Court's Riley decision isn't just for cellphones. (via FourthAmendment.com)

In this case, the search of a robbery suspect's backpack while he was being questioned yielded a ring, a digital camera, and other items. The police warrantlessly searched the digital phone1, discovering a photo of the suspect next to a firearm later determined to have been stolen. This led to two convictions: one for the stolen property and one for carrying a firearm without a license.

The defendant challenged all of the evidence resulting from the warrantless search of the backpack, but the state got to keep most of what it found, along with the conviction for theft. But it didn't get to keep the firearm conviction, as the court here sees digital cameras to be almost no different than cellphones when it comes to warrantless searches and the Riley decision. From the opinion:

The Commonwealth counters that Riley does not apply because digital cameras, lacking the ability to function as computers, are not analogous to cell phones for Fourth Amendment purposes. We decline to address the constitutionality of the search of the digital camera on Fourth Amendment grounds, but we apply the reasoning in Riley in holding that the search of the camera violated art. 14 [of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights].

[1] [I suspect the author meant digital camera, not digital phone - Ed]

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170821/10485338053/state-supreme-court-says-digital-phones-cant-be-searched-without-warrant.shtml

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @07:46PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @07:46PM (#560444)

    Care to explain your usage of "Orcs"? I have not heard of this Texas group before.

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @08:28PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @08:28PM (#560475)

    After some searching it looks like just another racist dog whistle, not sure what else I should have expected from jmorris.

  • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday August 28 2017, @08:43PM (1 child)

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday August 28 2017, @08:43PM (#560490) Journal

    He's likely comparing blacks or other racial minorities to Orcs, who IIRC are a sort of pig-human hybrid in D&D or similar high fantasy settings. Basically, he's combining everything dumb about racists with everything dumb about being a permanent neckbeard.

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @09:17PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @09:17PM (#560514)

      I've never seen razors run for the lives before, had to double check that I wasn't having fever induced hallucinations.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @11:51PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @11:51PM (#560592)