469
this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2026
469 points (99.2% liked)
Technology
85833 readers
3695 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.