Is Your Smart TV Spying on You? And How This Relates to the Most Important Suppression Opinion of the Year
From OCDLA Library of Defense
< Blog:Main(Difference between revisions)
This wikilog article is a draft, it was not published yet.
by: Ryan Scott • February 7, 2017 • no comments
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
And the answer is: | And the answer is: | ||
</summary> | </summary> | ||
| − | NOT IN OREGON, BABY! See [https://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/Blog:Main/Privacy_Interests_in_Records_Kept_by_Third-Parties ''State v. Ghim''], the most important suppression opinion of | + | NOT IN OREGON, BABY! See [https://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/Blog:Main/Privacy_Interests_in_Records_Kept_by_Third-Parties ''State v. Ghim''], the most important suppression opinion of 2016. |
{{wl-publish: 2017-02-07 11:31:25 -0800 | Ryan@ryanscottlaw.com:Ryan Scott }} | {{wl-publish: 2017-02-07 11:31:25 -0800 | Ryan@ryanscottlaw.com:Ryan Scott }} | ||
Latest revision as of 12:35, February 8, 2017
The Fourth Amendment blog writes about the story here.
The blog post asks the question: "So, if this is third party data, is it subject to mere subpoena and not a search warrant?"
And the answer is: NOT IN OREGON, BABY! See State v. Ghim, the most important suppression opinion of 2016.
