Why arent they asking the phone company and why havent they hacked his phone like they do to any other defendant?
this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2023
278 points (98.6% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2452 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I think it's not a question of if they can get them. It's a question of if they can use them.
They can legally seize them with a warrant. But that usually only happens if the target might attempt to destroy evidence or otherwise not cooperate.
They can also legally compel the target during execution of said warrant to provide their biometrics (but not their passcode) to unlock the devices.
Keep in mind, the biometrics also applies to traffic stops. If a cop believes you were texting and driving or something… they can use your face or whatever to get that evidence.
Set a passcode and remember to emergency lock any time you want more than biometrics locking your phone. Or don't use biometrics because they're easy to defeat anyways, but to each their own.
Here's what one state's texting law says about a stop for texting and driving: A law enforcement officer who stops a motor vehicle for a violation of paragraph (a) must inform the motor vehicle operator of his or her right to decline a search of his or her wireless communications device and may not: 1. Access the wireless communications device without a warrant. 2. Confiscate the wireless communications device while awaiting issuance of a warrant to access such device. 3. Obtain consent from the motor vehicle operator to search his or her wireless communications device through coercion or other improper method. Consent to search a motor vehicle operator’s wireless communications device must be voluntary and unequivocal.
That’s one out of 49. Do others have that? Sure. Some. Others don’t.
I wouldn’t trust it worth a fart, though, and trying to explain that law to cops is more likely to get you charged with contempt of cop.
I too would not trust it worth one fart. That said, seems reasonable you and I should drink some (many) beers, eat some (many) nachos and wings, and try to definitively determine the worth of a fart--so we're all on the same page when we use the fart as a measurement of worth. So, call me maybe?
[Scott] must disclose
That implies otherwise, no? Like if they alread had it wouldn't they just provide the foundation and then submit them to the Court as exhibits?
Why do they need Scott to do anything?
I assume that they need them to be handed over through a legal process in order to be admissible in court.
It is generally not allowed to use illegally obtained evidence in court.
Yes, I know that it does happen, and people who can not afford effective legal representation get convinced
If he had illegal materials would they still "wait" and do him the courtesy of allowing him to retain possesion of his devices?
It could also be, they want to see what he tries to hide.
I'm pretty sure that they already have all the messages. In the linked article it says:
Boasberg's order backs a decision made almost a year ago by U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, who found that Perry was required to share with prosecutors 2,055 communications he had attempted to hide, with only about 200 actually shielded.
There were originally 2,055 communications that he tried to hide, and the court has now said that 1,659 of them are not protected by the Speech and Debate clause. That means that the court must have reviewed all those messages in order to come to that conclusion.
The court is essentially telling him to consent to the messages being made available to investigators or to appeal the ruling, which he probably will. Eventually, assuming the ruling isn't overturned, the court will allow the Justice Department to use the messages in their investigation without his consent since he has no grounds to refuse.
Article I Section 6 of the Constitution
For the lazy:
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
Honest question, how does that apply here?
and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
Is typically seen as a broad prohibition on any investigation or action against a legislator based on their speech. So, if a Representative gives a blistering speech against the Governor of Virginia on the House floor, that Governor can't use that speech to have the representative charged with some sort of crime on the way to Dulles Airport in Virginia.
It's applies to any communication, so even text messages count, as long as they in any way involve the business of the House. But in this case, it was found that most of the messages were not covered under this clause.
"Boasberg found that the majority of the messages between Perry and other members of Congress, members of the Trump administration and allies outside of the government could not be concealed from prosecutors"
Sooo... sounds like a whole bunch of volunteers for 14th Amendment exclusion...
I am more surprised that he still has them to turn over. What kept him from deleting them all?
Government devices + mandatory backups? (shrug)
Excellent.
Assuming the order is followed.
If he doesn't, they'll get a warrant to have them delivered by the phone company, et al., and then they'll prosecute him for noncompliance. Either way, this isn't about if the evidence can be obtained, but more a statement of its upcoming use in the case.