A bank robber's cellphone gave him away. Now the Supreme Court is hearing his case

Train doslg to play Fortnite?

Since you deleted you [original comment](https://imgur.com/a/9HqLpBj) before I could reply to it, I'll include it in my post for context: > But what’s the difference between that and a surveillance camera? What’s the difference between sweeping up multiple people’s data and that of cops getting warrants to multiple people’s houses to find the end result of a crime? So you’re saying if the cops got a warrant to the wrong person’s house and they find no evidence, they can’t purse other warrants for the next suspect’s house, because they violated THAT non-guilty persons 4a right. The cops had probable cause that people within a certain time-location vicinity committed a crime, they’re not saying everybody within that geofence committed the crime, they’re pursuing a lead, it’s breadcrumb evidence. Now for my original response: > But what’s the difference between that and a surveillance camera? Well for starters, surveillance cameras are usually in public places where there is no expectation of privacy, or set up in private property by the owner. There are some arguments about whether mass surveillance done via camera networks, like the camera's Flock sets up for example are also a 4th amendment violation. But that is an argument for another day though. > What’s the difference between sweeping up multiple people’s data and that of cops getting warrants to multiple people’s houses to find the end result of a crime? The difference is they have to prove to a judge that they have a reasonable suspicion that a person committed a crime in order to get a warrant for a their home/data. Usually that requires some other evidence that person might be involved or know something they're hiding about a crime. If that means they have to apply for 20 warrants, then they have to apply for 20 warrants. Those innocent people's only fault as far as the geofence warrant is concerned was being near the bank, which is not a crime. They could have been people driving by, people in another store in the same plaza, blissfully unaware anything was even happening. In other words, they had no information linking any of those people to that crime. That's the problem. > So you’re saying if the cops got a warrant to the wrong person’s house and they find no evidence, they can’t purse other warrants for the next suspect’s house, because they violated THAT non-guilty persons 4a right. No, that's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that they need to apply for warrants for those people individually, based on information related to a crime, and related to those specific people. In you little scenario there, that innocent person very possibly had their 4th amendment rights violated, and may have standing to sue over it. > The cops had probable cause that people within a certain time-location vicinity committed a crime Arguably they didn't have probable cause. That is also part of the defenses argument. The [Virginia Code](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title19.2/chapter5/section19.2-53/): requires law enforcement articulate what they are looking for and from whom they are trying to take it from. The argument we are having is literally why this is before the Supreme Court, because people smarter than both of us disagree and people's Constitutional Rights are on the line.

> They see who’s on tape/in the area and then use that as further probable cause for a search warrant. That's exactly the difference. They have a target, an actual identifiable person to file a warrant against. They can see on a camera that person committed a crime, they can use witness statements to get a description, they can put that out publicly to find the person or stop someone they find nearby who fits that description. They can get warrant on that person for their home or phone or data. That whole train didn't infringe on anyone's rights, and their investigation follows logically from one step to another.