LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
+24 24 0
Published 4 months ago with 14 Comments

Join the Discussion

  • Auto Tier
  • All
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Post Comment
  • NotWearingPants
    +6

    4th amendment is on its deathbed. 5th is apparently falling ill.

    • achekulaev (edited 4 months ago)
      +2

      It has nothing to do with 4th amendment. They have a legal court warrant. Police can search a house with a warrant, but it is somehow wrong to search a phone with a warrant? What the guy is doing is basically equal to preventing the police from entering a house with a search warrant by playing "I lost the keys" game.

      • AdelleChattre
        +5

        This is why we shouldn't get half our articles from local Fox affiliates.

        • achekulaev (edited 4 months ago)
          +2

          It is pretty clear that police is trying to get to his dealer, while he is trying to protect his dealer.

          • Appaloosa
            +4

            Could be.

          • NotWearingPants
            +3

            I think is is more likely that he has further incriminating evidence on his phone.

            • Appaloosa
              +6

              Another possibility, maybe even true, but that would be after the fact and I think this is what this case is about. A test of law, of due process.

            • NotWearingPants (edited 4 months ago)
              +4
              @Appaloosa -

              One of these cases is going to end up in front of SCOTUS, eventually. Can the government use a warrant for the 4th to get around the 5th. With the current makeup of the court, I'm afraid the answer is going to be "yes".

            • Appaloosa
              +5
              @NotWearingPants -

              I think we are on the same page. Let's hope we are wrong.

            • achekulaev (edited 4 months ago)
              +3

              Then what is the point here? Everyone here seem to be pretty sure that the guy hides some crime, but let us all here theoretically pretend that in some parallel universe he is a law abiding guy that accidentally got into the situation and he just loves the idea of privacy so much, that he would rather suffer in jail for it? If we don't pretend he is a law abiding guy, then all this does not make any sense. The law was made with a purpose to protect against crimes, not with a purpose to be executed in a puristic manner for the sake of its own execution accuracy.

            • Appaloosa
              +4
              @achekulaev -

              I think we are all in agreement, from what I've read. The law is not in place to protect itself, but to protect society. Without that basis in mind, it becomes very dangerous as it sets it's actions on it's own precedence.

      • NotWearingPants (edited 4 months ago)
        +3

        No. This is much more like "what'sin that safe we found?"

        I don't know, and I don't have the key/combo".

        With a warrant, they drill the safe. It's harder to do with a smartphone,but tough shit. You can't (shouldn't be able to) put people in jail for knowledge they possess, particularly if that knowledge is self-incriminating. It's the 5th amendment in play here.

        • achekulaev (edited 4 months ago)
          +3

          Your situation completely drops the context of drugs being found around the "safe" and a sticker "The Stuff" that was put on top of the "safe". For me it justifies the attempt to forcibly and with a warrant open the "safe".

          • NotWearingPants
            +6

            So get a "safe cracker" to open it, then if there's evidence of human trafficking, video selfies of robberies, or anything else in that "safe", you don't have a 5A problem.

Here are some other snaps you may like...