New Regarding Historical Cell-Site Data (SW or Subpoena?)
From OCDLA Library of Defense
< Blog:Main(Difference between revisions)
This wikilog article is a draft, it was not published yet.
by: Ryan Scott • May 13, 2017 • no comments
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Discussion [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/04/26/will-the-supreme-court-agree-to-hear-the-fourth-amendment-cell-site-cases-and-should-they/?utm_term=.7e701a4a1dc5 here.] | Discussion [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/04/26/will-the-supreme-court-agree-to-hear-the-fourth-amendment-cell-site-cases-and-should-they/?utm_term=.7e701a4a1dc5 here.] | ||
| + | |||
| + | And an argument for revisiting the third-party doctrine is [http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/the_data_question_should_the_third-party_records_doctrine_be_revisited/ here.] As previously noted, the Oregon Constitution provides much greater protection to records held by third-parties, per [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8680509843225196007&q=Ghim&hl=en&as_sdt=4,38&as_ylo=2016 ''State v. Ghim'']. Having said that, the exact parameters of that protection will continue to be unknown until defense attorneys start preserving the issues. | ||
| + | |||
{{wl-publish: 2017-05-13 10:53:59 -0700 | Ryan@ryanscottlaw.com:Ryan Scott }} | {{wl-publish: 2017-05-13 10:53:59 -0700 | Ryan@ryanscottlaw.com:Ryan Scott }} | ||
Latest revision as of 11:20, May 14, 2017
The US Supreme Court is considering whether to take cases where the issue is whether a search warrant or a mere subpoena is necessary to obtain historical cell-site data.
Links to the multiple petitions for cert can be found here.
Discussion here.
And an argument for revisiting the third-party doctrine is here. As previously noted, the Oregon Constitution provides much greater protection to records held by third-parties, per State v. Ghim. Having said that, the exact parameters of that protection will continue to be unknown until defense attorneys start preserving the issues.
