374
They'll just do it illegally and conveniently leave out how they tracked down whoever's location but it's a nice sentiment.
this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2026
374 points (99.0% liked)
Technology
85837 readers
3548 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
it's 100% legal for them to just buy all the data they want, which is what they do anyway. it's taxpayer $ anyway, so why should they care.
this ruling just says they can't forcibly acquire that data, nothing about not buying it
Poor titling. The restriction is not in place. Thry have only sent it back to the lower federal court to let them determine if it counts as a 4th amendment search before making a decision. The NPR article is significantly better. https://www.npr.org/2026/06/29/nx-s1-5844697/supreme-court-restricts-use-of-geofence-warrants
If this does come back as a 4th amendment search, this might kill Flock and other fixed are surveillance devices in a really fun way. God, I can only hope. (But realistically I know they won't restrict shit)
The fact we had to have the supreme court rule this is insane to me. "Hey this search is going to violate the privacy of hundreds of people in the search of finding one person, do you think this is ok? Yea defo lets do it"
So now LEO's will just buy the data, instead of getting warrants, right?
No, they can't obtain the data without a warrant.
That broadly covers every way that information could come to them.
It's like how the police can't search your apartment without a warrant even if the landlord voluntarily makes them a copy of the key.
They can. What happens after that depends how rich you are and how corrupt your court is.
So, like every other aspect of life in the US then
I mean, they have to have another coup at some point soon right?
We should frame all cases as things the supreme court wouldn't want done to them. Like know the location of Clarence Thomas on his owner's yacht.
Even if they do require warrants, it still would be done without one.
Also, they'll get warrants from friendly judges who never ever reject a warrant request.
i mean, at least if we make them get the warrants, we have a paper trail of where they are used
Good point.
If they didn't get a warrant then this ruling means that every court must require that the evidence be suppressed.
A president can promote a scam crypto coin and get away with it. Nothing makes sense anymore.
The President doing illegal things has no bearing on the admissibility of evidence.
The judge decides what is allowed to be used at trial. If the prosecution ignore the judge and presents it anyway then the judge rules the case a mistrial. If the judge allows it then the court of appeal would overturn the ruling.
This doesn't stop them from illegally obtaining the evidence, but it provides the ruling that prevents it from being used at trial.
Are you actually saying that there are no corrupt judges in Trump's pocket? If so, you are truly thinking innocently.
Are you asking for help understating what I wrote? Or do you think that sarcastically attacking strawmen of your own creation is an argument?
Corrupt judges and bad decisions are why courts of appeal exist. These courts use multiple judges chosen at random specifically to prevent the kind of collusive behaviour that you're implying.
Are you asking me to explain why things are not always hunky dory? Just like the mob, people can be sniffed or snuffed out and blackmailed. Corruption will never be prevented when it comes to the higher ups in charge.
Yes, if the world were a John Grisham novel, some nefarious group could blackmail multiple judges across all levels of the appellate provesd, rig the system to ensure they're all assigned the case (by blackmailing the clerk of clurt) in order to ensure that they would have a chance to show illegally obtained location evidence to the jury, all 12 of whom are also blackmailed (why not?) to prove a person's phone was at a specific location.
Do you have any other fantasy scenarios that need co-signing?
What kind of evidence are you talking about here? I am talking about one simple judge. How else do you think Epstein got away with shit for so long??
I'm talking about the location evidence that is the topic of the Supreme Court ruling linked in the OP of this thread where you're crafting your bad faith arguments.
It seems we just had a misunderstanding, I was talking about Trump's evidence. We should start over, lol. Too much Hennessy.
Lol
I argue in multiple tabs and sometimes get them mixed up as well. 🫡
Yea, I done fucked up again lol.
It's crazy that we need rulings to provide basic rights, but sure I guess,
Because the rich don't want the government to look at their location data.
Except that this administration only gives a shit about what the courts say when they find in their favor...
They can illegally obtain the data all they'd like, this ruling means that the data obtained like that will be suppressed and not allowed to be shown to a jury.
Ignoring that would result in a mistrial and that decision would be upheld all the way up the chain via appeals.
Yeah, but you and I both know once they've identified a target, no matter what the means, they'll use that identification to build a case that doesn't involve the location information... Arguing "inevitable discovery" the whole way.
And either way, they'll prosecute.
As you and I both know, a case built on illegally obtained evidence is also illegal.
They can present whatever arguments they'd like and a judge can read the above Supreme Court case, rule that their case is built on illegal evidence and dismiss it. If that judge does not the the judges in the court of appeals can overturn the lower court.
All you have to do to get evidence admitted is show you could have arrived at it via a different (legal) path.
Usually it takes a really good lawyer to argue fruit of the poisonous tree successfully.
This ruling confirms that there is no other legal path to obtain that data which isn't a warrant.
Of course, you're right that there are other ways to prove location, but the digital evidence (as in this case) would be suppressed and the jury would not hear it.
The case that launched this Supreme Court decision is pretty textbook poison fruit. The subsequent search warrant which obtained the gun and cash was obtained specifically because of the geofence warrant. The lower court still has to determine the legality of the original warrant, but if it was found to be unreasonable (likely, overly broad) then all of the evidence including the custodial confession would be tossed.
This ruling confirms that there is no other legal path to obtain that data which isn't a warrant.
The supreme court ruling doesn't go this far.
The ruling says that a search occurred when LEOs obtained the geofenced location data from a service provider. The case was sent back down to the circuit court to determine whether or not a warrant was required.
There are various exceptions that allow the government to conduct warrantless searches under the 4th amendment. For example:
- the "frisk" in a Terry stop to search for weapons.
- search with consent
- search incident to arrest
- hot pursuit and exigent circumstance allow police to follow suspects into a place, but not usually to then go looking for stuff.
- searches within the (generous) border zone for border enforcement
- searches at airport security and similar contexts
- public roadway DUI checkpoints and other road safety checkpoints that stop all drivers.
It's not obvious that any of those apply to this case, but maybe they do. The circuit court will decide.
That's fair, I was adding a bit of my own judgment into that statement.
I believe that the circuit court will find that this is a typical search, requiring a warrant, but the Supreme Court didn't explicitly say that.
I like to think the justice system works...but I'm not convinced these days.
I hope you're right.