|
Maybe lovely software design patents will die in our lifetimes.
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 11:40 |
|
|
emdash posted:Utah vs Strieff came down today. xpost from USpol: So Breyer just sided with the conservatives to say that illegally stopping someone without cause is ok if the cop finds out there's a warrant for the person? Yes what this country needs is further empowerment of law enforcement. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
"By legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness, this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time. It says that your body is subject to invasion while courts excuse the violation of your rights. It implies that you are not a citizen of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged." - Sotomayor Sotomayor does not seem in the slightest bit happy about this decision.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:"By legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness, this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal Given that they can also take all your money and credit cards as well as incarcerate you I'd have gone with bandit state, or being subject to roving bands of brigands, but carceral is a great word regardless
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Sotomayor is everything I want out of the SCOTUS on the 4th Amendment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure Scalia would have been dissenting on that as well. Scalia's 4th and 5th jurisprudence was actually pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Maybe lovely software design patents will die in our lifetimes. Wouldn't count on it unless we change examination procedures. The Cuozzo case doesn't really affect anything, except insofar as inter parties review already made it easier to invalidate software patents. The decision maintains the status quo instead of making IPRs more expensive. Given the pro-troll decision last week, not a net positive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I'm pretty sure Scalia would have been dissenting on that as well. Scalia's 4th and 5th jurisprudence was actually pretty good. Generally true, but he was no fan of the exclusionary rule.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:Sotomayor is everything I want out of the SCOTUS on the 4th Amendment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:"By legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness, this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal Aw yeah, go to town on em abuela Copiously quoting her opinion now and forever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Meanwhile, the current nominee Garland is basically the opposite Are there meaningful citations for this, or just people extrapolating from his time as a US Attorney?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Are there meaningful citations for this, or just people extrapolating from his time as a US Attorney? http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/04/the-potential-nomination-of-merrick-garland/
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Also today in what is surely a rare event, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the Federal Circuit in ruling that the Federal Circuit had no jurisdiction to review the grant of inter-pares review of patents (which makes it easier to have lovely patents canceled) and upholding their standards on that review. Kalman posted:Wouldn't count on it unless we change examination procedures. Would either of you mentlegen care to provide or link a good summary of those cases and the implications of these rulings? I try to half-heartedly follow the status of our lovely-rear end patent system (no offense Kalman but you know I'm right  )
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Would either of you mentlegen care to provide or link a good summary of those cases and the implications of these rulings? I try to half-heartedly follow the status of our lovely-rear end patent system (no offense Kalman but you know I'm right For patent law in general, you'll get a good overview of what's going on (SCOTUS, Fed Cir, and major cases from district courts) from patently-o. Written for practitioners, so you may find it a little pro-patent, but it's generally accurate content.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:"By legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness, this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
It allows police to stop anyone for no reason whatsoever, do a warrant check, and then search incident to arrest anyone with a warrant
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
Yeah but we know it won't be "anyone", we know whom they will illegally stop, so this is good government overreach.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:It allows police to stop anyone for no reason whatsoever, do a warrant check, and then search incident to arrest anyone with a warrant On the one hand, let's say in ten years the police have all their dash cams and body cams tied in to a facial/gait/biometrics and license plate database that runs recognition on any person or vehicle that comes into their field of view. Could they effect an arrest based on that information alone? If the police serve a warrant on a suspected stash house and uncover a poo poo ton of drugs and also a black book that lists other stash houses, and other police serve warrants on those stash houses based on that book, and find a poo poo ton more drugs, and other police follow up leads in those houses to more people higher up the food chain, does all that work need to be scrapped if it the initial warrant is later tossed as being improperly sworn? It seems like the most logical solution is to hit PDs for the unlawful stops, including all the ones that don't produce anything, rather than throwing out evidence to the nth degree. On the other hand, that sounds like an inquisitorial system, and I don't much like that either. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Jun 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It's a terrible opinion though, because it takes a moral stance that makes no attempt to engage with consistency under the law. If the search was related to the initial illegal stop, I'd completely agree that it should be thrown out. But the fact that the search which discovered the meth was related to jailing someone over a lawful warrant means that following Sotomayor's logic leads to ridiculous outcomes. The fact that she's quoting essayists instead of jurists to support her argument shouldn't be seen as a credit. did you only read section IV or something?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:True, but I question whether how the police became aware "this person has warrants out" is relevant to whether they can lawfully arrest them. The arrest wouldn't become unlawful if you suppressed the evidence that resulted from the illegal stop. The exclusionary rule is the only thing that's given the 4th any teeth at all and the only way we're going to cut down illegal stops is to stop rewarding cops for them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:On the one hand, let's say in ten years the police have all their dash cams and body cams tied in to a facial/gait/biometrics and license plate database that runs recognition on any person or vehicle that comes into their field of view. Could they effect an arrest based on that information alone? quote:If the police serve a warrant on a suspected stash house and uncover a poo poo ton of drugs and also a black book that lists other stash houses, and other police serve warrants on those stash houses based on that book, and find a poo poo ton more drugs, and other police follow up leads in those houses to more people higher up the food chain, does all that work need to be scrapped if it the initial warrant is later tossed as being improperly sworn?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
"I don't see anything wrong with this decision." - someone ok with living in an actual police state The ruling should've been "you're not allowed to use evidence obtained illegally when a warrant was required and this is no different." The SCOTUS needs some public defenders to get nominated to the bench. Maybe, just maybe, we won't see it slowly erode the 4th in to nothing then.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The arrest wouldn't become unlawful if you suppressed the evidence that resulted from the illegal stop. The exclusionary rule is the only thing that's given the 4th any teeth at all and the only way we're going to cut down illegal stops is to stop rewarding cops for them. My hangup here is that there is already a valid court order for the person's arrest and by extension a search pursuant to that arrest, the cop didn't really need any probable cause because there's already a court order, all he needed was to recognize him. I get that this encourages illegal stops but I'm not sure that suppressing the search really changes that (not being able to grab additional charges from a contraband search really doesn't effect the primary motivation for pretext stopping for a warrant check), nor does it really seem like the legally consistent solution to the problem
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:True, but I question whether how the police became aware "this person has warrants out" is relevant to whether they can lawfully arrest them. Because the exclusionary rule exists as an impetus to force the police to respect people's rights: the police want to lock up criminals, and if they gently caress up, they don't get too do that, so they will therefore try not to gently caress up
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:My hangup here is that there is already a valid court order for the person's arrest and by extension a search pursuant to that arrest, the cop didn't really need any probable cause because there's already a court order, all he needed was to recognize him. I get that this encourages illegal stops but I'm not sure that suppressing the search really changes that (not being able to grab additional charges from a contraband search really doesn't effect the primary motivation for pretext stopping for a warrant check), nor does it really seem like the legally consistent solution to the problem A search incident to arrest is for safety reasons rather than being justified by probable cause so its more an exception that can be tolerated when not abused. There is no legal reason it has to be legit to use evidence from a search incident to arrest if it's ultimately stemming from an illegal stop.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:Under current case law, there is no search on plain view and therefore this would be permissible. Is it really that simple, though? Cameras can use high magnification/shutter speed/frame rate that’s far beyond the capabilities of the human eye. A scan with an infrared camera was ruled a search in Kyllo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Because the exclusionary rule exists as an impetus to force the police to respect people's rights: the police want to lock up criminals, and if they gently caress up, they don't get too do that, so they will therefore try not to gently caress up And if we allow evidence obtained illegally but punished cops, the public would glorify them for their sacrifice. They took one for the team, and put those dirtbags in jail. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
Yeah, I realized his hypothetical included "biometrics," but was too lazy to edit. If it's a camera that evaluates body temperatures or the like, that's not readily ascribed as plain view. I'm actually not all that well versed in in-the-streets type of body scanners case law (as opposed the obv search every time you go into an airport), but I'm presuming something along those lines is a 4A search. But if it's just a really good visual camera, that is plain view. Of course there will be a point on the spectrum where the courts might say that a really good visual camera is well beyond plain view. That's going to be a vague line that's probably not ever going to be all that clear unless if the technology becomes more or less uniform, so that there could be a "cell phone" type of decision. Kyllo was a home case, so as a threshold matter you've got to remember that that's in its own special box of 4A jurisprudence--to the point where the Court was not willing to make distinctions between "off the wall" and "through the wall" observations, which is a pretty valid concept under typical 4A jurisprudence. Kyllo was also infrared, so not really replicating plain view.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Is it really that simple, though? Cameras can use high magnification/shutter speed/frame rate that’s far beyond the capabilities of the human eye. No it isn't that simple but the courts like to pretend it is so they don't have to make hard and most likely arbitrary decisions about where the line should be drawn. An entire bus full of humans couldn't match a single ALPR camera mounted to a squad car, but pretending they are the same thing is a lot easier so that's where we are. I think in most states they compare to an onboard database of plate numbers of interest but with modern storage capacities and the ability to update the database remotely that is pretty meaningless in practice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:A search incident to arrest is for safety reasons rather than being justified by probable cause so its more an exception that can be tolerated when not abused. There is no legal reason it has to be legit to use evidence from a search incident to arrest if it's ultimately stemming from an illegal stop. I get that, my point is that the search is justified by the arrest which was itself legal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I get that, my point is that the search is justified by the arrest which was itself legal. Oh I get that reasoning, it was the majority opinion. I'm saying why I disagree.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Oh I get that reasoning, it was the majority opinion. I'm saying why I disagree. Fair enough, I haven't actually got a chance to read the opinion yet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:No it isn't that simple but the courts like to pretend it is so they don't have to make hard and most likely arbitrary decisions about where the line should be drawn. Is there a constitutional/real reason why American PD:s haven't rolled out ALPR:s? Finland has finally rolled them out and they have caught lot of suspended licenses.. Plus occasional wanted person.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
adhuin posted:Is there a constitutional/real reason why American PD:s haven't rolled out ALPR:s? Because they haven't figured out how to make it ignore white people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
adhuin posted:Is there a constitutional/real reason why American PD:s haven't rolled out ALPR:s? 50 states, multiple territories, no unified legislature or budgeting system for state level law enforcement, much larger population.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
adhuin posted:Is there a constitutional/real reason why American PD:s haven't rolled out ALPR:s? we have a TV show that features traffic cops using ALPRs so they can ticket and tow cars
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
American police departments have rolled out ALPRs. They aren't universal, but the reason they aren't uniform is likely more budgetary than anything else. There may be a city here or there that has banned them, but there is no constitutional or legal reason I am aware of they cannot be used. They just cost money.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Because they haven't figured out how to make it ignore white people. This is the biggest reason why face recognition cameras to search for warrants aren't equivalent to  random illegal stops Even if only Sotomayor has the stones to actually say what everyone knows.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:American police departments have rolled out ALPRs. They aren't universal, but the reason they aren't uniform is likely more budgetary than anything else. There may be a city here or there that has banned them, but there is no constitutional or legal reason I am aware of they cannot be used. They just cost money. Starve the
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 04:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 11:40 |
|
|
Please don't starve the pigs I derive a lot of pleasure from eating, it's probably one of my most favorite things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 04:55
|
|