The case involving a Virginia bank robbery is the latest example of the justices wrestling with how to apply constitutional protections to new technology.
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 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.
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?
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.
If they didn’t get a warrant then this ruling means that every court must require that the evidence be suppressed.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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?
deleted by creator
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.